OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY 
or  ILLINOIS 

338.8 
D377d 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 

A, 

M32 

De  Leon-Berry 
I  Debate  I 

Solution  of  the  Trust  Problem 


DANIEL  DE  LEON 

Late  Editor  New  York  Weekly  People, 
Presenting  Socialist  Side 

WILLIAM  H.  BERRY 

Ex-State  Treasurer  of  Pennsylvania, 
Presenting  Small  Capitalist  Side 


PRICE    lO  CENTS 


ISSUED   BY  THE    NATIOIVAL  EXECUTIVE 
COMMITTEE    SOCIALIST   LiAJBOR  PARTY 
NEW  YORK. 


Are  You  a  Reader  of  the 

Weekly  People? 

YOU   ARE  DEPENDENT 

upon  the  capitalist  class  for  a  chance  to  earn  a 
living  as  long  as  you  allow  that  class  to  retain  its 
autocratic  hold  on  industry.   If  you  would  attain 

THE   RIGMT   TO  WORK 

you  must  organize  with  the  rest  of  the  working 
class  on  proper  lines.  What  kind  of  organization 
is  needed,  and  what  tactics  should  be  pursued  to 
end  the  serf-like  conditions  in  the  sTiops  and  in- 
dustrial plants  of  the  United  States  is  pointed  out 
and  explained  in 

THE    WEEKLY  PEOPLE 

45   ROSE   STREET  NEW    YORK  CITY 

The  Weekly  People,  being  the  Party-owned 
mouthpiece  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  of  Amer- 
ica, aims  at  industrial  democracy  through  the  in- 
tegral industrial  union  and  revolutionary  working 
class  political  action.  It  is  a  complete  Socialist 
weekly  paper,  and  sells  at  $i.oo  a  year,  50  cents 
for  six  months,  25  cents  for  three  months.  A  trial 
subscription  of  seven  weeks  may  be  had  for  15 
cents.    Send  for  a  free  sample  copy. 


DAXI        1)1-:  LKON. 


De  Leon-Berry  Debate 

ON 


Solution  of  the  Trust  Problem 

Held  before  the  University  Extension  Society, 
Philadelphia,  January  27, 1913. 

BETWEEN 

Daniel  De  Leon,  Late  Editor  of  The  People 
and 

IVm.  H.  Berry,  Ex-State  Treasurer  of  Penna. 


Published  By 

NATIONAL    EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEB, 
SOCIALIST  LABOR  PARTY, 
45  ROSE  STREET, 

NEW  YORK  CITY 
1915 


That  this  [socially  necessary  labor  time]  is  really 
the  cfoundatliion  of  the  exdhangeable  value  of  all 
things,  excepting  those  \v*hich  cannot  be  increased 
by  human  industry,  is  a  doctrine  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance in  political  economy;  for  from  no  'source  dio 
(SO  many  errors,  and  so  much  difference  of  opinion 
in  that  science  proceed  as  from  the  vague  ideas 
whidh  are  attached  to  the  word  value. — (David 
Ricardo. 


33^.  9 
D377c/ 


ERRATA. 

^l_On  page  7,  line  15,  the  ward  "presentation"  should  read 
jiroblem." 

3d  2.— X)n  page  19,  line  2  in  the  second  speech  of  Daniel  De  Leon, 
the  word  "Socialistic"  should  read  "Socialist." 


PREFACE 


The  debate,  the  report  of  wthieh  is  contained  in  these  pages, 
was  held  ibefore  the  University  Extension  Society  of  Philadel- 
phia on  January  27,  1913.  Tbe  debate  was  reported  steno- 
graphically  and  is  published  without  either  of  the  participants  I 
having  read  or  revised  the  manuscript.  There  are  therefore 
necessarily  some  rough  places  wMcfti  appear,  which  otherwise 
wouJd  have  been  smoothed  out.  Such  places,  however,  are  very 
few,  and  should  interpose  no  difficulty  to  the  reader. 

The  debate  itself,  w'hich  was  supposed  to  be  on  the  "trust 
problem,"  soon  turned  into  a  debate  on  Caipitalism  versus  So- 
cialism, as  it  inevitably  had  to  do.  The  trust  problem  is  but 
one  of  the  many  manifesltations  of  a  social  order  whidh  is  se- 
riously out  of  joint,  and  as  none  of  the  manifestations  or  social  i 
phenomena  can  be  grasped  without  understanding  the  law  of 
value,  the  debate  soon  resolved  itself  into  a  debate  ^on  value,  sup- 
ply and  demand,  and  the  various  corollaries.  Mr.  Berry,  though 
an  able  and  iskilled  debater,  soon  **dasihed  his  head  against  it," 
[the  law  of  value]  to  use  an  expression  of  De  Leon''S. 

As  for  the  rest,  the  debate  is  interesting  for  the  participation 
of  two  ai>le  and  scholarly  men,  and  it  has  interest  beyond  the 
exigencies  of  the  moment,  since  the  battle  will  continue  to  rage, 
with  the  "trust  problem"  more  aggravated,  with  the  condition 
of  the  working  class  becoming  worse  and  worse,  and  with  that 
class  w'hich  Mr.  Berry  typifies,  the  middle  class,  ibeing  ground 
into  powder  between  these  two  millstones  in  society. 

The  boolklet  is  herewith  commended  to  the  thoughtful  student 
and  reader. 


The  Publishers. 


De  Leon-Berry  Debate 


CHAIRMAN'S  ADDRESS. 
STEWART  WOOD. 

The  University  Extension  hias  adopted  this  year  the  practice 
of  having  debates  on  subjects  of  political  and  public  interest, 
something  a  little  different  from  the  lectures  of  former  years, 
and  tonight  presents  to  you  in  juxtaposition  two  subjects,  both 
of  which  are  certainly  live  topics,  those  of  Socialism  and  the 
trust  problem. 

I  can  remember  nearly  forty  years  ago,  when  I  was  a  young 
man  in  Berlin,  visiting  some  of  the  ^^revolutionists  of  the  chair," 
as  they  called  the  professorial  Socialists  of  that  time,  and  one 
of  them  saying  to  me,  "You  will  be  having  Socialism  in  America 
soon."  I  was  a  little  disposed  to  scoff  at  it.  At  that  time  So- 
cialism, as  it  was  understood  in  Europe,  was  a  thing  practically 
unknown  here.  We  did  have  a  gentle  kind  of  Socialists,  who  in 
a  way  were  very  logical.  They  formed  little  communities  of 
their  own,  where  they  withdrew  quietly  from  the  world  to  lead 
their  gentle  lives  according  to  their  own  theories.  Sudh  were 
the  foHowers  of  Robert  Owen,  the  Shaker  Settlement,  the  Brook 
Farm,  and  so  on.  Those  examples  will  always  prove  and  re- 
main classical  examples,  both  of  some  of  the  fine  points  in  hu- 
man nature  to  which  Socialism  does  make  an  appeal,  and  also 
of  the  practical  difficulties  whidh  exist  in  human  nature  for 
making  it  a  success,  and  for  wlhioh  the  Socialists  will  have  to 
find  some  remedy  if  their  views  are  to  prevail. 

We  have  with  us  tonight  a  Socialist  of  a  very  different  type 
from  those  I  spoike  of  as  having  existed  in  early  days  in  Amer- 
ica. He  does  not  come  to  you  with  a  torch  or  with  dynamite, 
but  he  does  come  bearing  radical  views  of  philosophic  Socialism. 
I  take  pleasure  in  introducing  to  you  Mr.  De  Leon,  of  New  York. 


2 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE. 


DIRECT  PRESENTATION. 
DANIEL  DE  LEON. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — 

The  subject  I  was  invited  to  discuss  here  tonight  was  the  so* 
lution  of  the  trust  problem,  and  as  I  am  known  to  ibe  a  Socialist 
I  realized  that  I  was  invited  to  present  the  Socialist  position, 
which  is  the  Socialist  solution.  I  am  not  forgetful  of  the  fact 
that  I  am  speaking  here  under  the  auspices  of  the  University 
Extension,  and  that  my  audience  may  be  supposed  to  have  en- 
joyed the  advantages  of  college  training.  We  who  have  gone 
through  college  are  aware  that  words  cannot  be  understood  un- 
less we  go  to  their  roots.  It  is  with  words  and  terms  as  with  a 
ship.  The  ship  is  anchored,  but  according  to  the  streams  and  the 
winds  it  may  drift  to  the  north  or  to  the  south  of  its  anchorage, 
to  the  east  or  to  the  west.  By  following  the  anchor  we  ascer- 
tain where  that  ship  is  anchored.  It  is  so  with  terms,  especially 
with  so-called  technical  terms.  ^ 

The  word  "trust"  is  a  technical  term.  It  has  a  surface  mani- 
festation. It  cannot  be  approaclhed,  it  cannot  be  understood,  let 
alone  the  solution  therefor  presented,  unless  we  trace  that  word 
down  to  the  anchor  w*hich  the  term  is  fastened  to.  I  shall  there- 
fore invite  your  attention  to  an  argument.  I  do  not  come  with 
rhetoric.  I  do  not  come  with  oratory.  The  times  are  serious, 
very  serious,  and  it  is  thought  that  is  going  to  help  us  out.  The 
anchor  on  which  the  trust  question  is  fastened  is  that  law  of  po- 
litical economy  known  as  the  law  of  value.  I  wish  right  here 
to  say  that  that  law  has  'been  fought  by  all  the  elements  of  mod- 
em capitalist  society,  and  they  ihave  dashed  their  heads  against 
it.  But  at  such  critical  moments  ajs  the  Bryan  campaign  of  1896 
it  was  to  that  law  that  they  had  to  cling  for  refuge,  and  it  was 
a  page  from  Socialist  literature  that  furnished  the  excellent 
speeches  with  which  to  overthrow  the  Bryanistic  absurdity  of 
free  coinage  of  silver  regardless  of  international  trade. 

What,  then,  is  that  law?  I  see  no  blackboard  here,  and  I  shall 
bave  to  make  my  illustration  sihort.  It  must  appeal  to  your 
inemory.   The  law  of  value  establishes  that  merchandise  has  a 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


3 


value  according  to  the  amount  of  labor  power  crystallized  in  it 
and  socially  necessary  for  its  reproduction.  That  is  inhesive, 
and  yet  much  depends  upon  the  correct  understanding  of  that 
position,  because  that  law  is  the  social  dynamo  that  is  causing 
the  upheaval  throughout  the  civilized  world.  To  understand  that 
law,  I  shall  give  you  an  illustration. 

Take  yourselves  back  some  hundred  years  when  this  country 
began  its  independent  career.  Imagine  a  person  weaving  dothl 
here.  She  wove  cloth  with  an  old-style  loom,  that  is  to  say,  old- 
style  compared  with  what  we  have  today,  a  loom  that  they  then 
^ad.  You  want  to  suppose  that  the  person  wove  one  yard  of 
cloth  a  week.  That  was  doing  pretty  well.  The  labor  socially 
necessary  to  produce  that  yard  of  cloth  was  one  weeik's  labor, 
and  that  week -s  labor  crystallized  in  that  yard  of  cloth  rendered 
the  yard  exchangeable  with  any  other  commodity  that  required 
an  equal  amount  of  socially  necessary  labor.  You  want  to  sup* 
pose  that  it  took  just  one  week  to  produce  ten  bushels  of  po- 
tatoes. You  see  the  subject  is  a  commonplace  one,  and  it  is  well 
for  you  to  realize  the  beauty  of  these  commonplace  facts.  Then 
it  follows  from  the  law  of  value,  that  one  yard  of  cloth  was  the 
equivalent  of  ten  bushels  of  potatoes  in  the  market,  and  that  one 
yard  exchanged  for  those  ten  bushels,  and  vice  versa. 

But  the  progress  of  machinery  presently  enabled  some  one  to 
produce  two  yards  of  cloth  during  one  wedk.  The  oonsequence 
was  that  the  exchange  value  of  the  cloth  was  no  longer  one 
week's  labor  but  half  a  week's  labor,  or  one  yard  of  cloth  was 
equal  no  longer  to  ten  bushels  of  potatoes  but  was  equal  to  five 
bushels.  The  exchange  value  being  determined  by  the  socially 
necessary  amount  of  labor  crystallized  in  the  production  of  those 
commodities,  rendered  lower  the  value  of  the  cloth;  and  the  pro- 
ducer of  the  cloth.  Who  before  exchanged  that  one  yard  for  ten 
bu^els  of  potatoes,  was  compelled,  if  he  wanted  to  have  pota- 
toes, to  exchange  his  yard  no  longer  for  ten  bushels  but  for  five, 
because  no  longer  was  the  whole  week  socially  necessary  to  pro- 
duce it.  Someone  else  was  producing  cloth  in  half  the  time. 

To  make  a  long  story  short,  as  the  machine  or  the  tool  of  pro- 


4 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


duction  improved,  tte  time  came  when  during  that  week  no  long- 
er one  yard  of  cloth,  no  longer  two  yards  of  cloth,  ibut  lOOQ  yards 
of  cloth  were  produced.  The  time  necessary  to  produce  potatoes 
not  (having  changed, — and  if  it  had  it  wouid  come  down  to  the 
same  thing,^ — ^the  time  necessary  to  produce  1000  yards  of  cloth 
having  been  one  week,  it  follows  that  1000  yards  of  cloth  are 
equal  in  value  to  the  ten  (bushels  of  potatoes,  so  that  he  (or  she) 
who  was  producing  with  the  old-  style  loom  and  could  only  bring 
forth  one  yard  during  that  week,  had  to  limit  himself  to  the  one 
one-thousandth  part  of  one  bushel  a  week,  in  other  words,  had 
either  to  starve  or  throw  the  loom  on  the  scrap  heap  and  go  out 
and  sell  himself  as  a  wage  slave.  That  is  the  law  of  value.  As 
I  said  before,  capitalism  and  its  professors  have  been  trying  to 
overthrow  it,  and  wise  they  are  to  try  to  overthrow  it,  because 
that  is  the  central  point  that,  once  understood,  all  chimeras  drop; 
that,  once  understood,  all  halfway  measures  are  appreciated  at 
their  real  value. 

Under  the  social  pot  from  which  issues  the  trust  there  is  this 
law,  and  all  of  you  Who  have  understood  the  comparison  I  have 
just  made  will  be  ^ble  to  follow  me  when  I  come  to  that  improv- 
ed method  of  production  Which  is  known  as  the  trust  today. 

The  trust  must  be  stripped  of  all  its  accidental  circumstances, 
such  things  as  watered  stock,  such  things  as  agreements  be- 
tween gentlemen  or  non-gentlemen,  such  things  as  chicanery 
and  bribery  of  politicians.  These  are  poultices  that  help  the 
thing  along,  but  they  lare  not  characteristics  of  the  thing.  To 
understand  the  thing  we  must  eliminate  all  these,  and  what  we 
then  see  in  the  trust  is  a  contrivance  of  production  which  car- 
ries out  that  evolution  I  mentioned  before  with  regard  to  the 
loom,  and  carries  it  to  a  state  of  perf  ection  that  we  may  almost 
consider  final.  The  trust  is  that  device,  that  tool  of  production, 
which,  incited  by  the  law  of  value,  enables  production  to  be  car- 
ried on  more  and  more  plentifully,  with  less  and  less  waste.  The 
trust,  accordingly,  is  essentially  a  contrivance  of  production,  a 
tool  of  production. 

How  is  that  problem  going  to  be  met?  Just  as  soon  as  that  re- 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


S 


markable  tool  presents  itself,  that  gigantic  tool  that  enables 
production  to  be  carried  on  witfi  so  mudi  swiftness,  witli  so  lit- 
tle waste,  just  as  soon  a»s  that  tool  presents  itself  on  earth  a  new 
issue  also  presents  itself,  or  ratiher  is  seen.  The  question  of  the 
history  of  the  tool  is  civilization  turned  out.  The  tool  of  produc- 
tion is  the  yard  stick  by  which  to  measure  the  advance  of  man 
from  the  earliest  savagery  to  his  present  condition.  The  human, 
•being  is  the  only  one  thiat  is  bom  toolless,  and  therefore  help- 
less. Every  other  animal  is  born  with  implements  it  needs  to 
grub  its  existence  out  of  nature.  The  meanest  spider  has  all  it 
needs.  The  smallest  rat  has  all  it  needs.  The  eagle  has  his 
beak,  the  tiger  and  lion  their  fangs  and  claws,  the  beaver  that 
remarkable  tail  of  his. 

Go  through  the  whole  gamut  of  animals  and  you  will  find  that 
each  one  of  them  is  born  supplied  with  the  tool  that  it  needs. 
Man  alone  is  bom  toolless,  and  at  that  stage  of  his  existence  he 
is  the  most  helpless  of  all  animals.  He  is  the  sport  of  nature. 
Nature  has  her  foot  upon  his  neck,  maikes  him  her  toy,  afflicts 
him  with  drouth  one  day  and  drowns  him  with  flood  the  next, 
one  day  blesses  him  with  abundance  and  the  next  afflicts  him 
with  dearth.  No  animal  goes  through  that  experience.  Man 
does,  and  he  rises  from  that  by  slow  degrees  in  the  measure 
that  he  fashions  the  tools  with  which  to  fight  nature.  Vv^ith 
his  bare  fingers  at  first  he  has  to  eke  out  his  existence.  Pres- 
ently he  places  his  ha,nds  upon  the  tool,  and  v/ith  the  tool,  per- 
fecting it  by  little  and  little,  he  reaches  that  point  which  is  the 
point  that  civilization  has  advanced  to,  the  point  v4ien  v/eal'tih 
can  be  produced  so  abundantly  and  with  so  little  toil  that  all  the 
citizens  can  enjoy  the  leisure  with  healthy  exercise  which  only 
affluence  can  afford.  That  being  the  case,  that  the  tool  is  the 
weapon  for  human  freedom  and  the  perfection  of  the  tool  is  th^ 
symbol  of  the  capability  of  the  human  race  for  freedom,  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  the  element  of  society  which  today  has  na 
tool  of  production  is  no  better  off  than  our  barbarian  and  sav- 
age ancestors  25,000  years  ago. 

The  worlking  class  today  is  toolless.   Their  tool  is  owned  by 


6 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


the  class  that  (has  appropriated  it,  by  historic  methods  that  I 
sl.all  not  here  g'o  into.  At  any  rate,  the  history  of  the  tool  es- 
ta^bliches  this  principle,  that  the  tool  is  the  means  for  human 
•emancipation  from  the  thrall  of  nature,  and  he  who  owns  that 
tool  is  a  free  man.  He  wlio  does  not  is  a  slave,  orig-inaUy  of  na- 
ture and  now  of  the  class  that  does  own  it.  When  we  see  and 
weigh  that  position,  then  we  are  enabled  to  approach  the  sub- 
ject of  the  solution  of  the  trust.  We  have  here  a  g-iant  that  is 
instinct  with  g'ood,  and:  yet,  seeing  that  it  raises  such  a  rumpus, 
it  evidently  does  harm.   How  is  that  problem  to  be  solved? 

liight  hero  a  number  of  propositions  present  themselves.  I 
shall  take  up  only  those  that  lecognize  the  significance  of  the 
tool,  that  is,  those  propositions  that  somehow  or  another  stand 
planted  upon  the  law  of  value.  One  proposition  we  will  call  the 
proposition  of  love  and  affection  and  habits  of  thought.  It  sees 
the  trust  redounding  to  the  benefit  of  the  few.  It  sees  the  mil- 
lionaire heiresses  multiplying  and  purchasing  nobility  for  their 
husbands,  while  the  masses  of  the  people  are  in  deplorable  and 
increasingly  deplorable  salvery.  That  element  sees  that  the  po- 
litical government  is  helpful  to  the  trust.  That  element  says, 
'•'Sma^h  the  trust."  It  says,  *^Let  us  return  politics  to  the  peo- 
ple." Those  wiho  propose  that  solution  do  not  understand  the 
meaning  of  a  tool.  If  the  trust  were  to  be  smashed  it  would 
mean  sending  us  back  to  that  stage  where  the  abundance  of 
wealth  was  not  producible  without  excessive  toil,  w'here  the 
aibundance  of  wealth  was  not  possible  in  quantities  large  enough 
to  afford  well-being  to  all.  Those  Who  propose  to  smash  the 
trust  recognize  the  power  of  the  tool,  but  do  not  understand  its 
mission.  To  those  we  say,  the  trust  cannot  be  smashed  be- 
cause all  the  powers  of  civilization  are  making  toward  promot- 
ing the  operation  of  trusts.  We  say,  even  if  the  trust  could  be 
smashed  we  should  not  smaslh  it,  because  by  smaslhing  it  we 
vro^ild  throw  civilization  back. 

Another  proposition  is  this,  control  the  trusts.  This  element 
recognizes  that  the  trust  is  valuable,  but  it  says,  "It  does  do 
eome  misdhief.    Let  us  legislate  around  it."   Twenty  years  ago 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


7 


when  that  proposition  was  first  presented,  we  Socialists  showed 
that  it  was  impracticable.  Today  no  one  should  deny  the  im- 
practicability thereof.  To  control  a  trust  is  like  controlling  a 
tiger.  To  control  a  trust  is  to  make  believe,  because  the  prac- 
tical resiolt  of  all  attempts  to  control  the  trust  (has  been  to  have 
those  laws  broken.  Attempts  to  control  the  trust  resemble  an 
attempt  to  hold  back  a  fiery  horse  by  the  tail,  with  the  only  re- 
sult that  the  laws  that  are  passed  to  control  the  horse  are  kick- 
ed to  splinters,  and  the  splinters  serve  no  other  purpose  than  as 
pastry  for  corporation  lawyers  to  grow  fat  upon. 

Now  comes  the  third  proposition.  That  comes  from  those  who 
realize  that  the  trust  must  not  be  destroyed.  It  comes  from 
those  who  realize  that  the  trust  cannot  be  controlled.  They  pro- 
pose to  nationalize  the  trust,  and  that  is  the  scheme  that  'has  tihe 
abnormal  name  of  State  Socialism.  The  trust  presentation 
throws  its  light  upon  this  development,  that  today  has  reached 
that  point  where  the  political  goverament  must  be  overthrown^ 
v/hen  legislation  cannot  and  must  not  be  conducted  by  an  organ- 
ism that  is  separate  and  apart  from  the  productive  capability  of 
man.  Congress,  the  President,  and  all  our  judges  may  die  to- 
rn orrov/  and  not  a  wheel  of  production  would  stop  running.  That 
sort  of  government  is  political  government. 

It  is  said  that  the  solution  of  the  trust  lies  in  the  overthrow 
of  the  political  government  and  the  institution  in  place  of  the 
political  government  of  the  industrial  government,  the  govern- 
ment made  up  of  the  representatives  of  the  organized  industries 
of  the  nation,  the  wiping  out  of  the  state  lines,  and  the  institu- 
tion in  lieu  of  the  state  lines  of  the  industries.  Instead  of  hav- 
ing the  state  of  Pennsylvania  we  would  'have  the  industiy  of 
railroads,  the  industry  of  mines,  the  industry  of  weaving,  the 
industry  of  food  production,  and  so  forth;  and  the  represent- 
atives of  those  industries,  representing  the  working  people 
in  those  industries,  would  constitute  the  government,  and 
that  government  would  then  own  and  control  those  instruments 
of  production  that  civilization  needs.  But  State  Socialism,  Which 
is  justly  called  half-baked  Socialism,  would  put  into  the  hands 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


of  the  political  State,  the  State  Which  consists  of  capitalists,  tlie 
management  of  industry.  In  other  words,  it  would  put  in  their 
hands  additional  powers  to  tyrannize  the  people. 

If  I  have  any  time  left  I  wish  to  sum  up  in  a  few  words.  So- 
cialism demands,  as  the  only  solution  of  the  trust  problem,  the 
overthrow  of  the  political  State  and  its  substitution  with  the  in-, 
dustrial  State.  It  demands  this  becau'se  the  trust  should  not  if 
it  could,  and  could  not  if  it  would,  be  destroyed;  and  the  trust 
cannot  be  saved  for  the  people  unless  the  people  own  it  and  con- 
trol it  through  those  who  work,  and  not  through  politicians, 
whose  only  mission  in  civilization  has  been  to  keep  the  working 
class  in  subjugation. 

In  cloising,  I  hope  that  my  opponent,  if  he  opposes  this  con- 
clusion, will  state  whether  he  accepts  the  law  of  exchange- 
value.  If  <he  does  not,  why  not?  If  he  does,  how  can  he  deny  the 
inevit^bleness  of  the  perfected  tool  of  production?  If  he  does 
not  deny  that,  (how  will  he  explain  that  course  of  civilization 
which  Lewis  H.  Moirgan,  the  leading  American  writer  on  eth- 
nology, has  proclaimed  the  future  of  society;  namely,  that  (social 
institutions  and  social  associations  will  overthrow  the  political 
State  and  establish  the  industrial  State.  You  have  come  to  list- 
en. I  can  assure  you  that  no  one  will  listen  to  my  distinguished 
opponent  with  greater  attention  than  I,  and  as  I  have  no  hobby 
to  serve,  and  this  one  purpose:  to  promote  that  system  of  gov- 
ernment that  will  enable  man  to  have  what  belongs  to  him,  that 
will  enable  woman  to  enjoy  her  dignity,  that  will  enaible  child- 
hood to  enjoy  its  pleasures,  if  my  distinguislhed  opponent  can 
bring  any  point  of  reason  to  overthrow  my  position,  no  one  will 
be  more  thankful  than  I  to  hear  it. 

CHAIRMAN. 
STEWART  WOOD. 
Ladies  and  gentlemen: — 

You  have  undoubtedly  listened  with  interest  to  this  scholarly 
statement  of  the  views  of  the  Socialist  sdholars,  and  we  will 
now  listen  to  a  presentation  from  a  gentleman  w'ho  has  been  a 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


9 


captain  of  industry  and  is  a  captain  of  industry  himself,  and  has 
been  operating  under  conditions  of  individual  management  of 
industry.  I  need  not  introduce  one  to  you  who  is  your  neighbor, 
and  wlho  'has  played  so  conspicuous  a  paii;  in  restoring  the  self- 
respect  of  Pennsylvanians  v/hen  they  think  of  their  state  govern- 
ment. I  have  the  pleasure  of  introducing  the  Honorable  Wil- 
liam H.  Berry. 

FIRST  PRESENTATION. 
WILLIAM  H.  BERRY. 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — 

I  am  extremely  gratified  to  have  had  the  opportunity  of  list- 
ening to  the  presentation  of  t)he  argument  that  my  friend  has 
advanced.  I  am  extremely  sorry  that  I  am  compelled  to  differ 
with  him  at  the  very  outset.  I  would  iike  to  go  along  with  him 
as  far  as  I  can,  and  I  think  I  will  begin  at  the  back  end  of  his 
address,  in  order  that  I  may  go  with  'him  a  while.  I  join  with 
him,  and  v/ith  every  Socialist  wlho  complains  of  the  injustice  pf 
existing  conditions.  I  am  not  here  to  maike  any  apology  for  the 
rank  and  gross  injusitice  that  is  rife  throughout  our  civilization, 
but  when  it  comes  to  the  matter  of  presenting  a  remedy,  a  v/ay 
out  of  those  difficulties,  I  feel  myself  unaMe  to  follow  the  rea- 
soning of  any  of  the  Socialists.  I  was  in  hopes  I  might  find 
something  on  the  part  of  the  brother  wfho  has  just  spoken  that 
would  be  essentially  different  from  anything  I  had  previously 
heard.   I  have,  however,  been  disappointed  in  t^at  particular. 

I  want  to  preface  my  remarks  by  his  statement.  Mr.  De  Leon 
assumes  that  commercial  or  exdhange  value  is  determined  by 
the  cost  of  production,  by  the  labor  concentrated  in  the  produc- 
tion of  an  article.  I  am  compelled  to  deny  that  statement  in 
toto.  The  cost  of  production  does  not  nov/,  never  did,  and  never 
can  determine  exchange  value.  It  never  did,  does  not  now,  and 
never  can  do  it.  The  thing  that  determines  exchange  value  is 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  The  amount,  the  quantity  of  a 
product  which  is  offered  in  the  market  in  exchange  for  other 


lO 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


things,  as  compared  to  the  qaantlty  of  other  things  w^hich  are 
offered  in  exchange  for  it,  will  determine  how  much  of  one  will 
go  for  the  other,  absolutely  regardless  of  wiiat  it  cost  to  produce 
either  one.  Cost  of  production  ultimately,  in  the  long  run,  and 
in  those  things  which  come  to  be  of  daily  use,  will  have  a  con- 
trolling influence  upon  the  quantity  of  products,  hut  until  it 
does  it  is  absolutely  powerless  to  determine  anything  in  regard 
to  exchange  value.  It  must  first  work  upon  quantity  before  it 
does  anything  at  all  with  the  value.  That  is  in  harmony  with 
the  profoundest  philosophy  of  human  life.  If  it  were  not  so,  it 
would  not  have  persisted  through  all  the  ages.  These  things 
which  persist  age  through,  age  long,  you  may  take  for  granted 
are  ingrained  in  the  very  system.  The  reason  that  that  is  true 
is  because  the  ideal  man  is  a  free  man.  Patrick  Henry  said,  "I 
do  not  know  what  course  others  may  pursue,  but  as  for  me,  give 
me  liberty  or  give  me  death."  Put  me  off  the  planet  if  I  can- 
not be  free.  I  never  recited  that  old  speech  wthen  I  was  a  boy 
that  it  did  not  go  from  center  to  circumference  of  my  entire  be- 
ing. I  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  man  is  impossible  without  free- 
dom. 

There  is  no  merit  or  demerit  possible  in  any  action  that  is  not 
volition.  I  care  not  how  exemplary  one's  conduct  may  be,  if  it 
is  not  from  choice  there  is  no  merit  resident  in  it.  I  once  ad- 
dressed an  audience  of  1,500  men.  The  most  exemplary  conduct 
I  ever  saw  was  practiced  by  them,  universally,  absolutely  up  to 
date,  every  one  of  them  in  every  particular.  I  could  not  find  a 
single  fault  with  any  of  them.  They  were  in  the  Eastern  pen- 
itentiary. There  was  no  merit  in  anything  they  did.  They  did 
it  perforce.  So  I  hold  that  in  order  that  we  may  have  a  man  at 
all,  we  must  have  a  free  man,  a  man  who  makes  choice. 

Now,  we  come  into  tliis  world,  all  of  us.  This  world  is  the 
environment,  this  land,  these  natural  opportunities,  are  the  en- 
vironments of  our  existence.  Two  things,  of  course,  are  always 
to  be  considered  in  the  development  of  any  living  organism: 
heredity  and  environment.  I  would  like  to  take  time  to  trace 
the  heredity  of  this  race  to  where  I  believe  it  originated,  in  the 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


II 


niind  of  the  Eternal  God.  I  differentiate  between  a  man  and 
any  other  creature,  not  on  the  ground  of  his  being  toolless  when 
he  comes  into  the  world,  but  on  the  ground  that  he  has  the 
stamp  of  Deity  placed  upon  him,  in  that  he  is  a  free  agent  and 
shall  determine  for  himself  what  he  shall  do  and  how  he  shall 
do  it. 

But  we  come  into  this  environment.  Here  are  a  lot  of  tasks. 
In  some  places  it  is  easier  to  work  than  it  is  in  others.  Some 
tasks  are  very  pleasant  to  some  people,  not  always  to  every- 
body. I  know  a  fellow  that  would  rather  work  around  a  plant, 
fool  around  with  a  spade,  dig  among  the  worms  and  raise 
flowers  and  vegetables,  than  do  any  otfiier  thing  on  earth.  I 
would  not.  He  has  no  competitor  when  it  comes  to  me.  I  am 
not  bothering  with  his  job.  There  are  other  jobis  I  would  rather 
do  for  nothing  than  to  be  paid  for  doing  some  jabs.  Some  things 
are  more  excellent  to  some  people  than  they  are  to  others,  so 
that  if  we  are  to  have  free  men,  and  if  we  are  to  )have  men 
who  follow  the  impulse  implanted  by  the  Creator,  if  they  shall 
develop  in  full,  we  must  let  them  choose.  If  this  fefllow  wants 
to  raise  flowers,  let  him  raise  them.  Bat  if  flower-raising  loO'ks 
good  to  one  fellow  it  is  very  likely  to  look  good  to  somebody 
dse.  If  there  is  no  irksome  feature  in  the  taisk,  if  it  is  clean, 
wholesome,  pleasant,  a  Whole  lot  of  peoiple  will  likely  choose 
that  occupation.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  another  taf?k  over 
here  that  is  anything  but  pleasant.  It  (has  got  to  be  done,  but 
it  is  hard  work.  It  has  nothing  attractive  about  it.  There  is 
more  or  less  of  dirt  and  discomfort  necessarily  associated  with 
it.  Some  fellows  may  choose  it.  Some  fdlows  may  rather  do 
that  than  do  the  other,  but  most  of  us  would  not.  So  as  a  con- 
sequence a  great  many  people  will  choose  the  less  irksome  task, 
and  very  few  people  will  choose  the  more  irksome  task. 

As  a  consequence,  flowers  come  into  the  market  in  great 
quantities,  not  in  great  abundance  because  they  can  raise  a 
flower  quicker  tha^.  this  fellow  can  wheel  a  wlheelbarrow  of 
stone.  Not  so.  It  is  not  the  case  at  all.  The  labor  involved 
may  be  the  same,  but  a  whole  lot  of  people  want  to  do  this  par- 


12 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


ticular  worSc.  They  do  it  in  abundance  and  come  forward  with 
flowers  in  great  abundance.  This  other  thing  over  here,  w^hich 
is  extremely  necessary,  but  whidh  involves  irksome  effort,  comes 
scarce,  and  as  a  natural,  necessary,  inevitable  consequence, 
flowers,  no  matter  what  they  cost  in  the  way  of  effort  and  time 
to  produce  them,  will  exchange,  a  w'hoie  lot  of  them  for  very 
little  of  this  other  thing  on  the  other  side.  That  is  the  natural 
process.  If  left  to  itself  the  easy  job  will  alv/ays  get  the  poor- 
est pay.  Tlhe  hard  job  wM  always  g^et  tlhe  msost  pay.  That  is 
what  oug/ht  to  happen,  but  I  ought  to  be  perfectly  free  to  choose, 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  whioh  of  those  jobs  I  w^ill  work  at. 
That  ought  to  be  left  to  me,  not  to  you  or  anybody  else.  It 
should  be  a  matter  for  me  to  determine.  That  is  one  thing  I  in- 
sist upon.  I  am  going  to  choose  my  job.  I  v/ould  rather  starve 
at  certain  occupations  than  be  a  millionaire  in  some  others.  I 
insist  upon  it  that  I  can  only  do  my  best  work  and  only  rise  to 
the  highest  possible  leve'ls  f  ar  me  to  attain  w)hen  I  have  cho-sen 
congenial  employment,  no  matter  \rhat  it  is. 

We  have  the  trust  problem  confronting  us.  What  is  the  matter 
with  the  trusts  ?  I  have  no  fault  to  find  with  the  trust  on  ac- 
count of  its  size;  not  at  all.  I  ^have  no  fault  to  find  v/ith  the 
trust  on  account  of  its  efficiency;  not  at  all.  I  am  perfectly  satis- 
fied that  up  to  a  certain  extent  the  assembling  of  large  capital 
and  v/ldely  co-ordinated  effort  into  some  one  industry,  results, 
just  as  my  friend  here  has  said,  in  some  very  desirable  and  very 
proper  things.  I  would  perhaps  define  it  a  little  differently  from 
the  way  he  does.  I  would  call  it  more  a  manifestation  of  the 
division  of  laibor,  the  specialization  whioh  g'oes  on  and  marks  it, 
as  he  says,  as  the  index  of  human  advancement,  not  exactly  and 
solely  the  improvement  of  tools,  but  largely  the  improvement  of 
the  skill  and  ability  due  to  specialization  and  the  direction  of  the 
effort  of  the  individual  in  some  one  direction. 

If  there  is  anything  the  matter  with  the  trust,  what  is  it  ? 
There  is  only  one  thing.  There  is  only  one  dharacteristic  of  the 
trii;;t  that  I  think  we  want  to  try  to  get  rid  of,  and  that  is  the  one 
thing  that  strikes  at  the  very  heart  of  humanity,  monopoly.  That 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


is  all.  What  is  monopoly?  Let  me  give  you  a  definition.  r»Ion- 
opoly  is  anything  in  existence,  man-made  or  natural,  that  pie- 
vents  the  free  flow  of  effort  into  any  channel  of  production. 
That  is  what  it  is  and  that  is  all  it  is,  if  by  any  process  whatso- 
ever it  prevents  the  free  flow  of  effort.  I  mean  freedom  to  flow 
to  any  channel  of  activity  you  j^lease.  Wihat  is  its  opposite  ? 
Competition.  What  is  competition  ?  Tlhat  is  the  thing  that  is  at 
the  bottom  of  the  trust  proposition  which  I  am  opposed  to,  and 
which  I  think  the  thoughtful  mind  of  the  time  is  determined  to 
eradicate.  Monopoly,  the  miasma.  It  is  the  cankerworm  that  is 
at  the  bottom  of  this  entire  situation.  It  is  responsible  for  every 
evil  with  which  we  are  afflicted. 

Let  me  in  just  a  few  minutes  illustrate  its  operation.  It  has 
its  special  field  of  operation  in  three  particular  directions.  In 
the  first  place,  in  land,  using  the  term  in  the  broad  sense  which 
takes  in  all  natural  opportunities.  Suppose,  for  instance,  we  get 
before  us  a  community  that  we  can  see  all  around.  Crusoe  alone 
on  his  island,  of  course,  is  obliged  to  do  everything  for  himself. 
He  is  jack  of  all  trades  and  master  of  none.  He  never  knows 
how  to  do  anything  well  because  he  has  so  many  things  to  do  he 
never  becomes  master  of  anything.  In  consequence,  the  hats  he 
makes  are  of  no  account.  The  shoes  he  makes  are  bunglesome 
and  bother  him  more  than  they  do  him  good,  many  times. 

Let  one  hundred  men  assemble  with  him  on  the  island.  Now 
they  specialize.  Eadh  takes  up  some  one  particular  brandh  of 
production.  One  makes  hats,  another  shoes,  another  coats,  and 
so  on.  By  concentration  of  effort,  by  study  of  the  particular 
things  of  which  he  makes  a  life  business,  he  becomes  expert. 
True,  he  improves  his  tool,  too.  The  tools  are  a  factor  and  a 
large  factor,  but  they  are  not  the  only  factor.  The  improvement 
of  the  man  is  the  most  important  factor,  in  my  judgment.  I 
have  seen  lots  of  tools.  I  was  looking  just  the  other  day  in 
amazement  at  the  Merganthaler  type-^setting  machine,  and  I 
want  to  tell  you  it  never  set  a  type  on  earth  and  never  will  until! 
there  is  a  man  there  to  handle  It.  There  is  a  man  involved  in  ev- 
ery one  of  these  propositions.    No  matter  how  complicated  the? 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


tool  is,  there  is  a  m^n,  and  hi^  development  coi^es  abant  by  his 
specialized  attention  to  some  particular  thing.  He  ibecomes  skill- 
ed. This  man  produces  a  hat  in  a  day  w5iich  it  took  old  Crusoe 
a  v/eek  to  make,  and  it  is  a  far  better  hat  than  he  ever  had.  This 
man  produces  a  pair  of  shoes  in  a  day  that  it  took  Crusoe  a  v/eek 
to  make,  and  better  shoes  than  Crusoe  ever  saw.  But  with  the 
specialization  of  labor  comes  in  immediately  the  necessity  of  ex- 
change of  products.  The  s^hoemaker  cannot  wear  shoes  all  over 
him.  Our  feminine  friends  nowadays  seem  to  be  able  to  v/ear  al- 
most any  old  thing  in  the  shape  of  a  hat,  but  there  is  a  limit  even 
to  the  p'ower  of  our  lady  friends  to  wear  everything  on  earth 
on  their  heads.  He  cannot  clothe  'himself  entirely  with  this  par- 
ticular thing,  so  he  must  exchange  products  with  his  neighbor. 

I  want  to  stop  right  here  for  a  second  and  illustrate  one  of  the 
things  which  douibtless  my  friend  will  raise.  He  has  not  raised 
it  as  yet,  but  every  Socialist  I  ever  heard  talk  does  raise  it;  that  is 
the  question  of  profit.  I  want  to  show  you  that  this  hat  maker, 
bringing  a  hat  over  to  the  shoemaker,  will  say,  "Here,  will  you 
trade  even  ?"  E^oug'h  said,  they  trade.  The  hatmaker  going  *back 
with  a  pair  of  shoes,  chuckles  to  his  neig^hbor,  'Took  at  the  shoes 
I  got.  I  got  a  pair  of  shoes  here  I  could  not  have  made  in  a  week, 
and  got  them  for  a  ^at  I  made  in  a  day.  Look  at  the  rake-off  I 
got  on  that  deal."  The  shoemaiker,  going  home  to  his  chum, 
says,  "Look  at  the  hat  I  got,  a  good  hat  I  could  not  'have  made  in 
a  week.  I  got  it  for  a  pair  of  shoes  I  made  in  a  day.  Look  how 
I  skinned  that  fellow  on  that  deal,  the  tremendous  profit."  Both 
of  them  got  together  and  exchanged  products. 

Some  Socialists  seem  to  think  one  of  the  great  evils  against 
which  we  laibor  is  profit  taking.  I  do  not.  I  want  to  tell  you  that 
profit  talking  is  the  grandest  thing  in  the  proposition.  I  want 
to  tell  you  that  civilization  today,  and  all  that  beautifies  the 
earth  today,  is  accumulated  profit.  Had  there  been  no  profit, 
tliis  building  would  not  have  been  here.  All  that  is  accumulated 
is  profit,  and  it  does  not  scare  me  after  it  gets  in  that  positron. 
Our  Socialist  friends  call  it  capital,  and  get  awfully  scared  when 
they  get  to  calling  it  that.   I  am  not  afraid  of  it  at  all.  The  only 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


trouble  about  it  is  that  too  few  people  own  it.  It  is  the  segrega- 
tion of  it  in  the  hands  of  a  few  that  is  doing  damage.  How  has 
it  been  done  ?  In  almost  every  single  instance  through  the  op- 
eration of  monopoly  somewhere  in  some  shape  or  other.  So  that 
when  I  am  seeking  a  remedy  for  the  trust  question,  I  want  to  go 
to  the  root  of  the  matter  and  bring  up  monopoly. 

'Suppose  in  the  primitive  community  of  ours,  by  some  process 
or  other,  the  shoemakers  got  hold  of  the  section  of  land  that  rais- 
ed all  the  leather,  and  there  could  not  be  any  leather  raised  any- 
ijrhere  else,  and  that  society  had  been  harnessed  with  some  kind 
of  agreement  that  gave  the  owners  of  that  land  the  title  in  fee, 
so  that  they  could  say  to  everybody  else,  "Keep  off  Don't  you 
see  that,  the  population  growing,  it  would  all  have  to  concentrate 
in  the  h^  and  coat  business  and  elsewhere.  But  the  shoe  busi- 
ness would  be  cutting  out  the  shoes  in  the  old  quantity,  and,  hats 
coming  out  in  double  quantity,  one  pair  of  shoes  would  get  two 
hats.  They  would  have  the  same  labor,  the  same  effort,  but  the 
monopdy  that  surrounds  this  shoemaking  industry,  that  prevents 
the  free  flow  of  effort  into  that  channel,  simply  banks  up  an  ar- 
tificial value  by  operating  on  the  quantity,  entirely  indifferent 
to  the  cost  of  production. 

By  that  process,  the  monopolization  of  natursCl  opportunity  in 
the  first  place,  we  have  permitted  a  few  of  our  people  to  absorb 
all  the  profit  of  all  our  industry,  while  the  great  mass  of  our 
people  have  very  little,  and  we  are  fulminating  against  the  trust 
because  of  the  name  of  it  in  some  cases,  and  for  various  undi- 
gested reasons,  but  at  the  bottom  the  one  indictment  we  can 
bring  against  the  trust  is  that  it  prevents  competition,  for  it  is 
not  a  trust  in  any  hurtful  sense  until  it  can  prevent  competition, 
and  when  it  can  then  it  has  got  us  by  the  throat,  and  until  it  can 
it  is  as  harmless  as  we  are.  I  propose  that  the  monopoly  in  na- 
tural opportunities  shall  be  destroyed;  not  remedied,  but  abso- 
lutely destroyed.  I  do  not  believe  that  title  to  a  single  square 
inch  of  the  face  of  God^s  green  earth  can  be  justified  anywhere 
today.  There  is  not  a  single  title  of  record  today  that  cannot  be 
traced  back  to  gome  pihysical  giant  that  either  murdered  the  man 


i6 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


who  had  it  before,  or  drove  him  off  of  it,  and  kept  other  people 
off  by  force,  and  took  it  and  wrote  the  title  to  it  in  the  blood  of 
his  fellows. 

Second,  transportation.  People  cannot  exchange  their  prod- 
ucts unless  they  can  get  together.  If  there  is  a  chasm  between 
the  shoemaker  and  the  hatmaker  they  cannot  produce  as  special- 
ists. They  cannot  do  it.  They  cannot  improve.  Improvement 
there  is  impossible.  This  man  must  go  back  and  do  everything, 
and  then  he  never  does  anything  well.  Suppose  I  am  permitted 
by  the  community  to  open  a  road  and  build  a  bridge  across  this 
chasm,  and  then  I  am  permitted  to  sit  there  and  collect  toll  from 
the  fellow  that  crosses  this  way  and  the  fellow  that  crosses  that 
way.  I  will  get  them  coming  and  going,  both  of  them.  If  I  am 
given  a  monopoly  of  transportation,  unless  there  is  free  entry  ol 
competitive  effort  in  the  transportation  of  goods,  the  segrega- 
tion of  all  the  profits  on  all  the  industries  of  people  that  cross  it 
will  finally  land  in  the  pockets  of  the  toll-gate  keeper.  So  that 
I  will  direct  your  attention,  second,  to  the  evils  of  the  transpor- 
tation system. 

There  is  no  evil  in  one  of  these  magnificent  locomotives  that 
pull  a  hundred  cars  across  the  Rooky  Mountains;  nothing  wrong 
about  that,  nothing  wrong  about  one  thousand  or  ten  thousand 
miles  of  railway;  nothing  wrong  at  all  about  any  of  it  except 
monopoly.  Whenever  you  get  down  to  where  the  prevention  of 
competition  enters  then^  the  devilment  enters,  so  that  your  atten- 
tion should  be  directed  to  the  dissolution  of  the  monopolistic  fea- 
tures of  transportation,  whatever  they  are.  Open  up  competition 
upon  it.  It  is  the  one  thing  that  wiH  cure  the  .situation.  There 
is  still  another.  This  is  one  I  wish  1  bad  about  an  ftiour  to  talk 
about.  It  is  not  the  primary  one  in  point  of  historic  precedence. 
It  is  not  even  secondary,  "but  While  it  is  tertiary  in  point  of  his- 
toric sequence,  it  is  primary  in  point  of  momentary  imminence. 

I  went  into  the  Eastern  penitentiary  on  the  occasion  1  told  you 
about.  They  led  me  througih  the  outside  gate  and  locked  it.  We 
went  on  in.  They  let  us  througih  the  gate  of  the  'building,  took 
us  throufiTh  and  looked  it.   We  went  on  in.   They  took  us  to  an 


i 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


17 


inner  cell  apartment,  unlocked  that,  let  us  in  and  locked  it  be- 
{hind  us.  There  we  were  with  a  threefold  lock  between  us  and 
liberty.  Suppose  we  had  begun  to  f  ulminate  and  say,  "Here,  the 
ishing  that  is  troubling  us  here  now  is  the  outside  gate.  It  is 
troubling  us.  We  are  not  going  to  get  away  until  we  open  that 
gate."  Suppose  we  had  said,  "It  is  the  gate  to  the  main  building 
that  is  troubling  us.  We  are  never  going  to  get  out  until  we 
open  that."  But  we  will  never  get  to  those  gates  until  we  unlock 
the  cell  door  first.  The  thing  that  is  right  next  to  us,  the  thing 
that  has  got  us  in  such  an  iron  grip  today,  is  the  monopoly  in 
currency.   That  is  the  thing  we  are  up  against  today. 

I  want  to  make  this  statement  here  and  now,  without  fear  of 
successful  contradiction,  there  is  no  unwillingly  idle  man  on 
God's  green  earth  today  that  does  not  owe  his  present  inability 
to  find  woi^  at  profitable  wages,  wages  representing  every  par- 
ticle of  product  that  he  himself  produces,  to  the  monopoly  of  cur- 
rency that  exists  in  this  country  today.  I  am  prepared  to  de- 
fend that  proposition  at  length  and  show  you  very  briefly  how  it 
works.  We  come  finally  to  changing  these  products  around,  and 
pick  out  one  'of  them  as  the  most  convenient  for  a  medium  of  ex- 
Change,  the  current  commodity,  so  to  speak.  By  and  by  we  at- 
tach the  power  of  law  to  it,  and  say,  "If  you  owe  anybody  any- 
thing this  is  the  tfhing  that  you  have  got  to  get  in  order  to  pay 
it."  The  minute  you  do  that  you  do  not  set  up  monopoly  there, 
fbut  you  make  possible  the  most  dangerous  monopoly  that  con- 
fronts the  race.  Why?  Simply  for  this  reason!  When  you  have 
done  that  you  have  set  by  law  a  monopoly  which  prevents  the 
free  flow  of  effort  into  the  production  of  this  particular  com- 
modity, which  alone  in  all  the  scope  of  our  product  is  empower- 
ed to  cancel  debt.  That  is,  the  only  way  you  can  get  away  from 
a  creditor  is  by  coughing  up  the  money.  I  do  not  care  what  else 
you  have  got,  get  the  money  or  you  cannot  get  away  from  the 
creditor.  Whenever  you  make  it  difficult  to  produce  the  money, 
then  you  make  it  difficult  to  get  away  from  the  creditor.  Let  us 
see  where  that  leads  you,  especially  taking  this  great  jump  my 
friend  is  obliged  to  take,  down  to  the  present  time,  where  this 


i8 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


great  institution  of  currency  has  come  to  be  one  of  the  equival- 
ents in  every  exchange. 

One-half  of  the  things  that  pass  from  hand  to  hand  in  the  - 
world  is  currency,  and  when  that  comes  to  pass  and  you  are  pro- 
ducing a  locomotive,  for  instance,  it  is  very  interesting  to  see. 
Visit  the  Baldwin  locomotive  works.  There  is  a  magnificent 
locomotive,  weighing  150  tons,  representing  the  laibor  of  probably 
thousands  of  men.  Probably  a  hundred  thousand  men  in  differ- 
ent ways  had  something  to  do  with  the  manufacture  of  that 
great  machine.  There  it  was,  ready  to  be  put  on  the  market. 
There  was  not  a  man  that  had  anything  at  all  to  do  with  it  from 
its  very  inception  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth  as  iron  ore  until  its 
final  delivery  into  the  hands  of  the  engineer,  but  what  got  a 
piece  of  money  for  his  efforts.  Laibor,  money.  Material,  monej''. 
Everything  weighed  against  money  in  that  proposition,  so  that 
finally  w^hen  the  locomotive  was  ready  to  be  put  on  the  market 
it  owed  the  Baldwin  locomotive  works  a  certain  amount  of 
money,  and  that  money  must  be  secured  for  it  or  the  locomotive 
works  cannot  run.  Anybody  that  has  ever  tried  to  run  a  factory 
— I  do  not  make  locomotives,  'but  I  tell  you  I  maJke  mud-bricik, 
and  you  cannot  make  such  a  simp'le  thing  as  mud-brick  without 
paying  money  to  somebody  every  time  you  turn  over  in  bed.  Ev- 
ery time  you  have  a  brick  made  ^'^ou  have  to  get  a  certain, 
amount  of  money  for  that  brick  when  you  sell  it,  or  you  are  go- 
ing to  the  sheriff.  I  do  not  care  what  your  business  is.  What 
is  it  that  determines  the  amount  of  money  that  I  will  secure 
for  the  brick,  or  that  Mr.  Baldwin  will  secure  for 
the  locomotive?  Not  the  cost  of  making  brick?  Oh,  my,  no.  Not 
the  cost  of  making  the  locomotive  ?  Oh,  my,  no,  by  no  means,  not 
now  or  ever. 

The  thing  that  determines  how  mudh  money  will  be  exchang- 
ed for  the  locomotive  will  depend  entirely  upon  the  numlber  of 
locomotives  that  are  in  the  market  offered  for  money,  as  com- 
pared to  the  amount  of  money,  on  the  other  hand,  that  is  offer- 
ed for  locomotives.  That  is  what  will  determine  how  muc'h  the 
locomotive  brings  in  the  market.   Then  you  discover,  as  every 


DE  LEON^BERRY  DEBATE 


19 


manufacturer  in  fiie  knoWn  world  has  discovered  over  and  over 
ag-ain,  that  if  you  let  your  people  work  all  the  time  in  the  loco- 
jnotive  shop  or  in  the  bric^kyard  or  anywhere  else,  you  will  get 
more  of  this  kind  of  stock  than  that  fellow  is  getting  of  Ihis,  and 
the  first  thing  you  know  a  locomotive  costing  you  $20,000  to- 
m^ke,  you  have  to  sell  for  $15,000.  Then  the  sheriff  looms  up  as 
big  as  the  Whole  horizon.  Your  speed  of  money  production 
is  determined  by  lav/,  and  when  you  have  limited  that  the  nec- 
essity rests  upon  every  man  to  limit  the  production  of  locomo- 
tives and  of  everything  else,  and  lays  hack  upon  the  whole  race 
the  necessity  of  restraining  effort,  and  >sets  up  something  that 
people  miscall  competition.  They  tell  me  that  the  people  who» 
stand  around  the  gates  of  the  locomotive  works  fighting  one 
another  for  the  first  chance  to  get  in  there  and  bidding  against 
one  another  to  get  the  job  at  a  less  and  less  wage,  are  compet- 
ing. No,  no,  no  more  like  competition  than  day  is  like  night. 
That  is  war,  arid  war  is  hell  and  nothing  but  hell,  and  there  is 
more  of  it  in  that  contest  than  there  is  in  the  clinch  of  armed 
forces,  and  it  is  'set  up  solely  by  reason  of  the  presence  of  mon- 
opoly. 

SECOND  SPEECH. 
DANIEL  DE  LEON. 

My  audience  will  remember  that  I  stated  in  the  course  of  my 
opening  that  the  lav/  of  value  which  Socialistic  science  has,  is  a 
rock  against  which  the  capitalist  forces  have  wisely  addressed 
their  efforts.  My  distinguished  opponent  proved  that  proposi- 
tion. I  also  stated  that  against  that  rock  all  opposition  has  dash- 
ed its  head.  I  think  I  can  prove  to  you  that  my  distinguished  ad- 
versary proved  that  point,  too. 

My  distinguished  adversary  denied  that  law  of  value  which 
says  that  the  amount  of  labor  crystallized  in  a  commodity  estab- 
lishes its  exchange-value.  He  said  exdhange-value  is  established 
by  supply  and  demand.  Now  listen,  men  and  v/omen.  If  supply 
and  demand  establish  value  it  fallows,  for  instance,  that  if  I  pull 
with  my  left  hand  with  40-pound  force  and  with  my  rig'ht  hand 


20 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


with  10-pound  force  upon  a  pendulum,  that  pendulum  will  lean 
toward  the  left  hand.  If  I  pull  with  my  right  hand  with  50- 
pound  force  and  with  my  left  hand  with  20-pound  force,  the  pen- 
dulum will  swing  toward  my  right.  Supply  and  demand  means 
that  the  larger  the  soipply  in  relation  to  the  demand  the  lower 
is  the  value,  and  the  lower  the  sup'p'ly  the  higher  is  th»e  vailue.  In 
other  words,  if  the  supply  is  50  pounds,  Which  I  take  in  my  left, 
and  the  demand  is  only  20,  the  value  would  he  toward  my  left 
Ihand.  If  toward  my  rig^ht  hand  the  supply  is  100 
pounds  and  from  my  left  side  the  demand  is  only  10; 
the  price  would  be  so  muah  lower  because  the  supply  is  so 
muc^h  higher.  All  right,  but  suppose  supply  and  demand  cancel 
each  other.  Suppose  the  supply  and  the  deman'd  are  even.  What 
becomes  of  value  ?  Does  it  vanish  ?  No.  If  I  pull  with  50-pound 
force  that  pendulum  with  my  right  hand  and  pull  it  back  with 
10-pound  force  with  my  left  hand,  the  pendulum  will  oscillate  to 
my  right,  but  if  with  my  right  I  pull  with  lO^pound  force  and 
with  my  left  I  pull  with  10-pound  force,  according  to  that  rea- 
soning the  pendulum  would  fly  into  the  air.  No,  the  pendulum 
will  swing  obedient  to  the  law  of  gravity.  The  law  of  supply  and 
demand  explains  nothing  at  all  because  if  the  elements  of  sup- 
ply and  demand  equal  eadh  other,  wihat  becomes  of  value  ?  That 
value  is  dependent  upon  the  amount  of  labor  power  that  crystal- 
lizes in  it.   I  thirtk  that  point  is  made  clear. 

My  distingui^ed  friend  said  that  monopoly  is  the  trouble.  He 
said  that  monopoly  means  that  the  free  flow  of  effort  is  prevent- 
ed. I  admit  that,  and  I  showed  why — what  it  is  that  brings  that 
about,  namely,  that  law  of  industry  that  produces  all  that  improv- 
ed machinery,  which  excludes  the  man  who  has  not  got  it.  He 
said  that  competition  is  the  remedy,  that  whatever  promotes 
competition  will  destroy  that  monopoly.  He  said  there  is  no 
trust  until  competition  is  prevented.  Then  he  started  to  tell  us 
what  were  the  causes  of  monopoly.  He  began  with  land.  It  is 
true  he  mentioned  railroads  and  it  is  true  he  mentioned  money. 
The  money  subject  is  one  which  needs  a  special  address,  but  he 
began  with  land  monopoly  and  argued  that  if  a  person  appro- 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


21 


priates  a  certain  portion  of  the  earth  that  is  the  foundation  of 
all  monopoly.  According  to  him,  after  having  made  that  as  a 
condition,  money  and  railroads  have  not  any  rope  left.  K  the 
ownership  of  land  is  what  produces  monopoly,  and  if  the  owner 
of  that  land  can  tell  the  other  fellow  to  get  off  the  earth,  why 
cannot  the  owner  of  that  land  tell  the  moneyed  man  and  the  rail- 
road man  to  get  off  the  earth?  That  is  the  single  tax  theory,  a 
theory  which  has  to  be  taken  separately  and  will  be  the  subject 
of  an  address.  All  I  can  do  in  the  fifteen  minutes  left  to  me  is 
to  puncture  that  bladder.  I  will  show  it  to  you. 

I  again  repeat,  I  take  it  for  granted  most  of  you  have  had  a 
college  education.  You  know  the  language,  the  importance  of 
language  in  determining  certain  facts  and  the  significance 
thereof.  It  is  through  philology  alone,  language,  that  we  can 
trace  the  stages  of  our  progress.  When  our  ancestors  migTated 
from  Asia,  one  branch  went  into  Italy  and  another  went  into 
Germany.  Philology  tells  us  that.  Philology  may  help  in  this 
case  to  prevent  this  absurdity  of  the  single  tax  from  extending 
any  further.  I  say  to  you  that  there  is  nothing  in  that  theory  of 
land  being  the  source  of  monopoly.  Conjure  to  yourselves  some 
of  the  leading  Revolutionary  Fathers.  Conjure  to  yourself  the 
most  eminent  of  them  all,  Benjamin  Franklin.  Conjure  before 
you  the  most  brilliant,  Thomas  Jefferson.  Conjure  'before  you 
the  profoundest,  James  Madison.  Ask  them,  "Did  you  hear  that 
so-and-so  was  land-poor?"  Imagine  the  statement.  They  would 
not  know  what  that  meant.  They  would  say,  **Man,  you  are 
crazy.  Land-poor  is  a  contradiction  of  terms.  He  who  has  land 
cannot  be  poor."  That  was  the  condition  then.  Today  we  have 
the  tetrm  land-'poor,  a  term  that  show's  that  the  thing  exists,  that 
a  man  can  have  land  and  yet  be  poor  as  Job.  Between  the  land 
and  natural  opportunity  lias  arisen  the  tool  of  production,  the 
trust  monopoly  of  production.  Philology  rig'ht  here  comes  to  our 
assistance  and  tells  us  of  this  change  in  conditions,  of  that 
change  in  conditions  whidh  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary Fathers,  when,  land  being  all  that  was  necessary,  the 
term  land^poor  did  not  exist;  whereas  today,  wSxen  land  is  no 


22 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


longer  the  foundation  for  monopoly,  when  between  land  and  na* 

turai  opportunity  has  arisen  the  tool  of  production,  that  gigan- 
tic, perfected  contrivance  called  the  trust,  land  has  taken  a  back 
seat.  There  was  a  time,  according  to  the  single  taxers,  when 
vvhite  parasols  and  elephants  mad  with  pride  went  with  the  title 
to  land.  Today  we  have  white  parasols  and  elephants  mad  with, 
pride  that  are  no  longer  in  the  possession  of  the  landlord.  They 
are  in  the  possession  of  the  capitalist  lord.  He  owns  them,  and 
the  landlord  has  passed  the  sceptre  over  to  the  capitalist  who 
owns  the  capital,  and  owning  the  capital,  owns  the  land,  because 
without  that  capital  the  land  is  inaccessible  to  him,  inaccessible 
because  of  the  law  of  exchange  value  that  renders  the  labor  of 
him  who  has  not  the  necessary  capital  unproductive.  That  much 
for  land  monopoly. 

As  to  the  money  monopoly,  it  falls  together  with  the  land 
monopoly.  We  had  Crusoe  referred  to,  a  favorite  authority  with 
single  taxers.  I  refer  all  of  you,  including  my  distinguished  ad- 
versary, to  the  other  works  of  the  author  of  "Robinson  Crusoe," 
namely  Daniel  Defoe.  He  wrote  "Robinson  Crusoe,"  but  he  also 
wrote  "Dilwoi^th."  If  I  were  a  single  taxer  Crusoe  would  be  the 
last  man  I  would  mention,  because  he  reminds  us  of  Daniel  De- 
foe, and  the  mention  of  Daniel  Defoe  reminds  us  of  his  work 
which  knocks  the  single  tax  sky  high.  I  refer  you  to  his  great 
work,  "Captain  Jack."  He  v/as  one  of  the  grand  men  of  Eng- 
land and  was  sent  over  here  under  indenture,  virtually  a  slave, 
and  had  to  work  seven  years  for  his  master.  But  his  master  lov- 
ed him  and  appreciated  him  and  said  to  him  one  day,  "Jack,  you 
have  served  me  faithfully  for  a  couple  of  years.  I  don't  want  to 
have  you  to  sen^e  me  any  more.  I  have  lots  of  land.  Beyond  is 
all  the  land  you  v/ant.  Go  there  and  help  yourself."  The  author 
of  Robinson  Crusoe  says  Captain  Jack  fell  upon  his  knees  before 
his  master  and  said,  "Master,  what  have  I  done  to  you  that  you 
treat  me  like  that?  What  can  I  do  without  the  implements  of 
production?  I  cannot  help  myself." 

Daniel  Defoe  is  the  m.an  who  knocked  out  the  single  tax. 
He  lived  at  a  time  when  that  vagary  came  up,  and  it  was  perfectly 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


23j 


logical  it  should  com^  up,  because  right  here  I  want  to  say  to 
you  that  taxation  is  a  badge  of  servitude.  He  who  taxes  is  mas- 
ter. He  \v<ho  is  taxed  is  slave.  The  feudal  lords  owned  the  land,, 
consequently  the  land  was  not  taxed.  The  movable  property  of 
the  bourgeois  was  taxed.  When  the  bourgeois  made  a  revolu- 
tion they  turned  the  tables  on  the  feudal  lords  and  said,  "Our 
property  shall  not  be  taxaible.  Your  land  shall  bear  all  taxes." 
Take  any  given  land  as  a  pledge,  free  that  man,  and  leave  cap- 
ital in  the  hands  of  the  capitalists,  and  the  capitalists  will  have 
the  whole  sway.  Listen  to  those  who  claim  that  land  monopoly 
is  the  foundation  of  all.  Do  you  thinik  when  a  farmer  puts  a 
mortgage  on  his  land  he  does  so  because  he  thinks  a  mortgage 
is  like  a  flower-pot  ?  No,  it  is  the  law  of  exchange-value  that 
renders  it  impossible  for  him  to  produce,  with  as  little  effort,  as 
plentifully  as  a  fellow  who  has  a  reaper  and  other  instruments 
of  production.  As  he  is  bankrupt,  he  goes  cap  in  hand.  He,  at 
one  time  the  holder  of  the  white  parasol  and  elephant  mad  with 
pride,  goes  to  the  banker.  The  banker  looks  him  all  over  the 
same  as  the  feudal  lord  looked  at  the  bourgeois.  He  asks  him 
many  questions  so  as  to  make  sure.  When  that  landlord,  the 
owner  of  that  foundation  and  groundwork  of  all  monopoly,  has 
passed  muster  with  the  banker,  then  the  banker  puts  another 
rope  around  his  neck  and  gets  a  mortgage  whereby  the  banker 
becomes  really  the  owner  of  the  land  and  the  farmer  becomes 
his  slave.  He  becomes  a  slave  for  the  capital  that  the  farmer 
needs  to  produce  with. 

I  think  I  covered  the  matter  of  money.  I  have  here  a  memor- 
andum w^idh  I  shall  refer  to  for  a  moment.  My  friend  said 
profit-making  is  the  grandest  thing  in  creation.  Every  capital- 
ist w^ill  agree  with  that.  The  social  revolutionist  says,  ^*Nay, 
nay;  it  is  a  crime."  It  was  a  necessary  crime.  It  was  a  crimo 
which  was  incident  to  that  development  of  the  tool  until  v/e 
reached  the  time  when  production  was  perfected  by  the  trust. 
What  is  profit?  Profit  is  that  amount  of  wealth  wihidh  the 
wage  slave  yields  over  and  above  his  market  price.  If  the 
workingman's  market  price  is  $1  a  day  then  $1  he  gets,  and 


24 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


I>roifit  is  everything  that  the  capitalist  can  squeeze  out  of  him 
as  use  value.  Profit  means  unpaid  laibor.  Profit  means  that 
portion  of  wealth  that  humanity  'has  sweated  and  whieh  is  found 
in  the  pockets  of  the  few.  It  means  wholesale  and  legalized 
theft,  and  (how  anybody  can  invdke  aid  in  support  of  such  a  thing 
passes  my  understanding. 

SECOND  SPEECH. 
WILLIAM  H.  BERRY. 

I  am  very  much  interested  in  my  brother's  effort,  especially 
in  this  matter  of  profit.  I  want  to  pay  attention,  however,  to 
his  illustration  of  the  operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand. There  is  nothing  so  illustrative  or  so  apt  as  a  good  illus- 
tration. The  tug  of  war  between  two  contending  forces  does  not 
illustrate  the  phenomena  of  supply  and  demand,  at  all.  What 
I  widh  to  do  is  to  give  you  now  the  real  illustration  of  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand.  It  is  not  an  easy  thing  to  do.  There  are 
not  very  many  operations  that  may  be  cited.  That  probably  is 
the  reason  my  good  brother  has  skipped  them  all.  I  know  of  but 
one.  It  is  the  contention  between  the  force  of  gravity  on  the 
one  hand,  whidh  tends  to  pull  a  balloon  down,  and  tbe  buoyancy 
of  the  atmosphere  on  the  other  hand,  which  tends  to  raise  it  up. 
As  the  altitude  of  the  balloon  increases,  the  buoyancy  of  the  at- 
mosplhere  decreases  by  reason  'of  the  increasing  rarity.  Just  so, 
as  the  value  of  an  article  increases,  the  demand  gradually  de- 
creases by  reason  of  the  inaccessibility,  the  inability  of  men  to 
compete  for  it,  and  if  it  were  to  rest  in  that  position  it  does  not 
go  up  in  the  air  even  then.  It  has  a  point  where  the  equilibri- 
um between  the  contending  forces  of  gravity  on  the  one  hand, 
or  supply,  tends  to  pull  it  down,  and  the  -buoyancy  of  the  atmos- 
phere, paralleling  the  force  of  demand,  on  the  other  hand,  tends 
to  raise  it  up,  and  whenever  they  come  to  a  balance  there  it 
rests.  Some  things  will  range  higher  than  others,  but  the  fact 
that  they  have  a  fixed  place  in  the  scale  of  values  does  not  af- 
firm for  a  minute  that  they  are  off  the  map.  They  are  there 
just  the  same.   They  are  there  resisting  two  contending  forces. 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


2S 


This  would  even  be  true  of  a  couple  of  teams  pulling  on  a 
weig'ht  with  equal  force.  The  fact  that  the  forces  are  equalized 
does  not  take  the  weight  off  the  map  by  any  means.  The  weight 
is  rigiht  there.  The  equilibrium  of  forces  simply  determines 
where  the  weight  will  rest.  If  the  force  on  one  hand  is  stronger 
than  the  other  it  will  pull  it  over  there,  but  the  right  place  and 
the  best  place  to  bring  it  is  in  a  vertical  movement,  because  we 
usually  think  of  things  very  valuable  as  being  high.  It  is  a  mere 
matter  of  thinking,  so  the  parallel  might  better  be  taken  that 
way.  The  contention  of  the  forces  of  supply  and  demand  always 
did  and  always  will  determine  the  question  of  value,  and  the  dis- 
tribution of  profit  is  the  result  of  the  contending  forces  of  sup- 
ply and  demand. 

As  to  the  mal-distribution  of  the  profits  of  industry,  whatev- 
er my  friend  may  say  to  the  contrary,  I  think  the  profit  upon 
anything  is  the  difference  between  what  it  cost  to  produce  it 
and  what  you  get  for  it.  That  is  the  profit.  The  difference  be- 
tween what  it  costs  you  to  make  an  article  and  what  you  get  for 
it  is  the  profit,  and  if  profits  were  equally  distributed  there 
would  be  no  trouble.  The  difficulty  is  that  they  are  unequally 
distributed.  I  want  to  tell  you  that  ia  man  Who  has  a  factory 
and  is  not  a  landlord  is  in  bad  shape.  The  man  who  does  not  own 
the  ground  his  capital  rests  on  is  in  bad  shape.  If  there  is  m> 
other  ground  to  take  it  to  the  landlord  will  eat  him  up.  That  is 
easy  to  see,  but  I  want  to  talk  about  this  mal-distribution  of  this 
profit.  That  is  the  whole  problem.  It  is  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand.   In  other  words,  it  is  the  law  of  human  freedom. 

I  want  to  tell  you  I  would  rather  have  some  hard  times  and 
be  free  than  live  in  luxury  a  slave.  I  have  not  any  use  for  the 
slavery  I  see  in  the  Socialist  program.  What  is  the  trouible? 
This  man  has  a  factory.  I  want  to  tell  you  something.  He  is 
the  most  miserable  of  all  men  if  he  *has  to  go  into  a  labor  mar- 
ket where  the  demand  for  labor  is  greater  than  the  supply.  Just 
think  a  minute.  I  have  got  a  dhoe  factory.  I  want  to  hire  men. 
I  go  out  into  the  market  w'here  there  are  two  jobs  hunting  for 
one  man.    Let  that  situation  persist  for  any  length  of  time  ia 


26 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


your  locality,  and  the  first  thing  you  iknow  the  working  man  will 
be  making  as  much  profit  as  the  man  that  o^;ms  the  factory  and 
may<be  a  little  more.  In  most  cases  today,  even  in  this  imper- 
fect system,  that  is  the  case.  I  can  cite  you  cases  without  num- 
ber in  wihidh  the  workman  gets  more  than  he  produces  day  in 
and  day  out  for  months  together,  and  finally  the  sheriff  takes 
the  factory  not  infrequently.  Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  people 
that  go  into  productive  enterprises  get  that  handed  to  them  be- 
fore they  are  done  with  it.  Seventy-five  per  cent,  go  to  the 
sheriff.  Why  ?  Because  the  woi  kingman  gets  more  than  he  pro- 
duces. When  he  fails  to  get  it  (and  in  the  long  run  he  does  fail 
to  get  it),  he  does  not  get  his  own  by  any  means.  When  he  does 
fail  to  get  it  it  is  simply  because  the  man  who  wants  to  hire  him 
goes  into  a  congested  labor  market  where  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand  sets  up  conditions  in  which  two  men  are  hunting  for  one 
job,  in  which  case  always  and  everywhere  the  workingman  v/ill 
get  the  worst  end  of  the  proposition.  He  is  sure  to  get  less  than 
is  coming  to  him. 

^^^y  is  there  an  idle  man  ?  That  is  the  question.  Most  of  the 
Socialists  who  have  discussed  this  question  with  me  attempted 
to  tell  US  why.  Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  I  think,  the  last  time  he  v/as 
here,  told  us  the  workman  does  not  get  all  that  he  produces  be- 
cause he  does  not  get  all  that  he  produces,  and  he  showed  it  to 
us  beyond  peradventure  that  that  v/as  true.  A  man  does  not 
get  all  he  produces  because  he  does  not  get  all  he  produces.  I 
cannot  see  any  sense  in  that  and  never  could,  Ibut  I  can  see  the 
reason  why  the  workingman  is  in  a  congested  market,  Why  two 
men  are  hunting  for  one  job.  Whenever  a  locomotive  works 
sees  that  the  price  of  its  locomotives  is  going  down,  there  is  on- 
ly one  thing  for  the  locomotive  man  to  do  to  save  himself  from 
the  sheriff^  and  that  is  to  shut  down  the  locomotive  factory  and 
stop  making  locomotives,  stop  building  the  product.  That  is 
what  he  does,  and  why  does  he  do  it?  Not  because  we  do  not 
want  locomotives.  James  G.  Hill  said  not  a  great  wlhile  ago  the 
railroads  of  this  country  today  need  $5,000,000,000  for  extension 
of  the  railways  of  this  nation.    Thousands  upon  thousands  of 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


27 


iliocjomotives  are  in  immediate  demand  in  this  nation  today,  yet 
our  locomotive  makers  dare  not  make  them  beyond  a  certain 
speed.  Why  ?  If  they  do  the  price  goes  down  and  the  sheriff 
takes  the  locomotive  worlds-.   That  is  the  reason. 

The  land  question  is  a  fundamental  question.  The  landlord  is 
on  the  job;  don't  think  he  is  not.  But  I  am  not  ihere  to  tell  you 
that  the  land  question  is  the  only  question,  by  any  means.  I  tried 
to  explain  to  you  that  it  is  only  the  outside  gate.  It  is  the  gate 
to  the  wall  of  the  prison.  You  will  never  'be  free  until  you  cor- 
rect it.  The  gate  that  leads  you  into  the  prison  yard  and  out  af 
the  huiiding  is  the  transportation  question;  but  the  cell  door,  th^ 
door  that  has  got  you  in  its  grip  at  this  minute  all  over  the 
civilized  world,  is  the  currency  monopoly.  The  money  people 
have  got  you  tied  down  until  you  cannot  get  to  the  outside  door. 
The  first  thing  you  have  to  decide  is,  what  are  you  going  to  do 
with  tliis  currency  question?  It  is  nothing  new.  Five  hundred 
years  before  the  dawn  of  the  Christian  era  the  Prophet  Amos 
called  dovm  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  upon  Israel  because  they  had 
made  the  ephalh  small  and  the  shekel  great.  How  had  they 
made  the  shekel  great?  By  making  it  scarce,  isetting  up  mon- 
opoly around  it.  They  caused  the  poor  of  the  land  to  fail.  How? 
By  making  two  of  them  beg  for  one  job.  The  same  old  story. 
It  is  as  old  as  the  race  and  just  as  potent  today  as  it  ever  was. 

Inch  by  inch  the  coils  of  this  monopoly  contract.  The  land- 
lord even  comes  up  to  the  banker.  Why,  even  the  landlord  to- 
day when  he  comes  up  to  the  banker  has  got  his  hands  full.  He 
is  up  against  it  for  fair,  as  the  boys  v/ould  say,  when  he  meets  a 
banker.  I  want  to  warn  you  tonight,  rny  friends.  I  went  to  a 
moving  picture  show  in  Pittsburgh  not  a  great  while  ago.  I  waa 
not  much  interested  in  the  moving  pictures  hut  they  had  a  fel- 
low that  swung  a  lariat.  I  am  always  interested  in  that.  I  came 
from  the  Western  country  myself.  He  was  the  most  expert  ar-^ 
tist  with  a  rope  that  I  ever  saw.  He  stood  his  assistant  on  the 
back  end  of  the  stage  and  swung  the  lariat  over  and  put  it 
around  his  ankles  and  jerked  it  up,  and  then  one  half -hitch  after 
anothei'  ran  along.   It  flew  over  the  assistant's  head,  like  get 


28 


DE  LEON 'BERRY  DEBATE 


ting  a  fish  hook  on  a  line,  one  half -hitch  after  another  until  he 
had  every  limb  tied,  and  at  last  he  wrapped  it  around  his  neck. 
I  tell  you  the  question  here  is  the  use  of  the  rope  in  this  atmos- 
phere of  ours  today*  Hitch  after  hitch,  half-hitcih  after  half- 
hitdh,  is  coming  and  the  final  ringer  they  call  tihe  Aldrich  Bill. 
Look  out  for  it.  If  they  land  that  it  is  all  up.  Let  them  land 
that  final  half Jhitch  and  the  poor  landlord  and  the  poor  manu- 
facturer, no  matter  who  it  is,  his  name  is  Dennis.  He  is  finish- 
ed if  ever  you  allow  that  last  Wtch. 

But  what  I  want  to  get  bac^k  to,  for  all  these  tfliings  are  im- 
material to  me,  is  the  proposition  I  started  out  with.  Let  me 
tell  you  unless  we  can  have  free  men  we  cannot  lhave  men  at  all. 
I  can  see  an  inherent  difficulty  in  the. Socialist  program,  neces- 
sarily so.  Grant  that  we  shall  own  indiscriminately  these  in- 
dustries. By  some  process  or  other  you  determine  who  shall 
run  them.  Somebody  has  got  to  do  it.  You  have  got  to  let  us 
compete  with  one  another  for  the  opportunity  to  manage  that 
thing,  by  which  process  alone  in  my  judgment  can  you  ever  de- 
termine who  is  the  best  man  to  do  it.  The  men  best  capable  of 
doing  it  are  doing  it  today.  The  men  at  the  head  of  these  great 
institutions  got  there,  not  in  every  case  but  in  most  cases,  be- 
cause they  were  the  men  of  the  hour.  They  got  there  by  reason 
of  qualifications,  through  competitive  methods.  Sometimes  they 
did  not,  but  after  they  got  there  they  put  it  over  us.  How  are 
you  going  to  get  it  ?  You  are  going  to  get  it  in  one  of  two 
ways.  You  are  either  going  to  let  us  compete  for 
those  jobs,  or  you  are  going  to  elect  somebody  at  the  liead  of 
the  situation  whose  business  it  will  be  to  say  to  me,  ^*Berry,  you 
run  that  thing.  Brother  De  Leon,  you  run  that  one."  "But  I 
object."  "Never  mind,  now.  This  has  got  to  be  run.  There  are 
not  enough  of  these.  You  come  over  here  and  run  it."  You 
must  either  let  me  choose  that  or  choose  for  me,  one  of  the  two. 

That  difficulty  inheres  in  every  fibre  of  the  Socialist  pro- 
gram. As  a  practical  method  of  operation,  you  must  either  let 
me  choose  or  dhoose  for  me,  one  of  the  two.  If  you  let  me 
choose,  that  is  competition.    That  is  human  freedom.    If  you 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


29 


choose  tot  me  that  is  slavery.  'I  do  not  care  who  the  chooser  is. 
I  do  not  care  whether  I  help  to  elect  him  or  not.  I  am  a  slave 
just  the  same.  If  there  was  any  necessity  for  it  I  would  submit 
to  it,  but  I  insist  there  is  no  necessity.  I  insist  that  all  we  have 
to  do  is  to  undo  this  monopoly  that  we  have  allowed  to  grow 
thus  far  and  set  our  industries  free.  If  a  man  is  down  in  a  well 
the  vmY  out  is  isp,  not  down.  The  further  you  dig  down  the 
worse  you  get.  Socialism  leads  you  further  down  in  this  thing, 
for  wiiat  is  monopoly  ?  \Wat  is  the  'hurtful  thing  about  it  ? 
Nothing  but  the  infringement  of  human  freedom,  that  is  all. 
Nothing  but  the  slavery  of  man  is  involved  in  monopoly.  That 
we  do  not  like.  Monopoly  is  slavery  to  whatever  extent  it  ex- 
ists, and  that  is  what  we  hate  about  it.  When  you  begin  to  ex- 
tend the  system  then  you  take  away  from  every  one  of  us  the 
very  thing  that  made  the  civilization  of  which  we  are  so  proud 
and  Which  is  our  boast. 

THIRD  SPEECH. 
DANIEL  DE  LEON. 

My  distinguislied  adversary  denied  my  symbol  of  supply 
and  demand,  that  is,  the  opposing  forces,  and  said  the  real  com- 
parison is  the  law  of  gravitation  as  it  affects  things  up*  and 
down.  I  v/ill  prove  to  you  that  that  comparison  of  Ms  will  not 
fit,  for  the  reason  that  the  law  of  gravitation  is  a  permanent 
thing,  always  there,  always  with  the  same  force,  whereas  de- 
mand is  not  always  there  with  the  same  force,  and  supply  is  not 
always  there  with  the  same  force.  Consequently,  the  thing  that 
puts  value  upon  them  must  be  a  thing  that  is  changeable.  What 
is  changeable?  Supply  and  demand,  and  I  have  showm  with  my 
illustration  that  the  forces  which  I  imagined,  are  changeable.  The 
compaTiison  of  gravity  will  not  hold  water  for  the  reason  that 
gravity  is  not  a  changeable  force.    It  remains  permanent. 

Number  2.  My  distinguished  adversary  said  that  profit  is  the 
difference  betv/een  the  cost  of  production  and  what  you  get  for 
it.  If  that  is  true,  then  profit  is  cheatimg.  K  a  thing  costs  me 
$6  and  I  get  $20  I  'have  stuck  the  purchaser.   That  is  not  profit. 


30 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


The  man  who  makes  profit  does  not  cheat  the  purchaser.  He  re- 
covers the  value  of  the  goods  that  he  sold.  The  one  who  is  cheat- 
ed is  the  workman.  He  was  not  paid,  and  the  capitalist  gets 
that  swag.  The  oiiher  definition  of  profit  is  typical  of  the  cap- 
italistic mind.  The  capitalist  actually  (believes  that  (Cheating  is 
what  does  it.  No,  some  capitalists  cheat,  tbut  society  could  not 
last  upon  that  basis.  Capitalists  give  value  for  w*hat  they  get, 
but  the  value  they  give  for  the  money  they  get  get  is  not  the 
value  that  they  pay  Lahor  for.  The  wor'kman  is  cheated.  The 
workman  does  not  get  all  his  produce.  Of  course,  not.  The  law 
of  exchange-value,  whidh  is  an  illustration  of  supply  and  de- 
mand, only  confirms  the  statement.  That  explains  why  the 
worker  does  not  get  all  that  he  produces.  The  socially 
necessary  tool  of  production  is  not  his.  That  socially 
necessary  tool  is  in  the  hands  of  a  private  concern,  and 
it  needs  the  tool  which  can  produce  as  plentifully  as 
the  trost;  that  is  what  is  meant  by  the  socially  nec- 
essary tool.  Since  he  has  not  got  that  he  has  to  go  and  sell 
himself  in  wage  slavery,  and  wage  slavery  means  selling  oneself 
as  a  commodity.  The  workman  today  is  nothing  but  a  commodi- 
ty, and  he  gets  his  price,  which  is  determined  by  supply  and  de- 
mand— the  price,  not  the  value.  His  value  is  vastly  higher,  but 
his  price  is  determined  by  supply  and  demand.  The  tool  throwsi 
more  and  more  capitalists  out  of  the  capitalist  class  into'  the 
lower  class.  The  supply  becomes  larger.  The  demand  does  not 
rise  in  proportion,  and  the  workman  does  not  get  what  he  pro- 

We  have  been  told  Socialism  is  slavery  and  the  workman 
makes  more  than  the  capitalist.  How  could  there  be  a  capitalist 
under  Socialism?  It  is  like  telling  us  through  the  Revolutionary 
days  that  there  would  be  no  freedom  in  America  after  King 
George  was  kicked  out,  because  the  Revolutionary  Fathers  and 
the  citizens  of  these  colonies  would  ibe  trampled  upon  by  the 
British  Crown.  How  can  the  British  Crown  trample  after  it  is 
kicked  out?  When  the  capitalist  class  has  been  aholished  by  ap- 
propriation by  the  people  of  that  which  by  rig'ht  is  theirs — ^that 
which  they  cannot  exist  without  except  as  slaves  'of  the  capital- 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


ist  class — then  for  the  first  time  in  creation  a  revolution  takes 
place  in  which  the  victorious  class  will  not  hang  that  class  which 
it  overthrows,  but  in  which  it  will  enable  that  class  to  earn  an 
honest  living  by  going  to  work.  I  realize  there  is  nothing  for  the 
capitalist.  I  realize  it  seems  almost  like  servitude  to  him  that 
capital  cuts  no  figure,  but  he  will  be  given  an  opportunity.  The 
revolutionary  class  will  do  that. 

When  my  distinguished  adversary  says  many  workmen  get 
more  than  the  capitalist,  I  would  like  to  know  if  he  will  accept 
my  amendment.  Many  a  capitalist  cannot  continue  to  sikin  his 
workingmen  of  part  of  what  they  produce,  although  he  is  get^ 
ting  more.  I  admit  it.  That  is  so  because  that  capitalist  is  pro- 
ducing with  tools  inferior  to  other  capitalists  and  he  is  ground 
between  the  upper  and  nether  millstones.  The  capitalist's  tools 
fail  to  produce  as  cheaply  as  those  of  the  other  capitalists,  and 
the  result  is  that  he  cannot  continue  to  exist.  He  goes  into 
bankruptcy,  but  it  is  not  because  the  workman  got  more  than 
*he.  There  is  no  such  capitalist  in  existence..  If  you  find  any 
Siuoh  in  Philadelphia  my  advice  to  you  is  to  grab  him,  pinion  'him 
and  put  him  in  a  hall  on  exhibition. 

We  were  told  a  good  deal  about  money.  My  distinguished  ad- 
versary gave  up  his  theory  that  land  was  the  foundation  of  mon- 
opoly. Instead  of  being  the  foundation  it  wais  the  back  gate.  I 
congratulate  him  on  the  progress  he  has  made.  What  is  money? 
I  cannot  go  into  that  broad  subject.  Money  is  a  necessary  thing 
under  a  social  system  that  produces  for  sale  and  not  for  use. 
Given  that  production  for  sale,  with  the  law  of  value  working 
under  it,  and  you  must  have  money,  and  you  kick  against  that 
as  a  barricade.  The  ground  and  foundation  of  the  theory  whic^h 
I  mentioned  was  this  private  tool  of  production.  Remove  that 
and  there  is  no  money  anymore.  Money  vanishes  absolutely, 
such  a  thing  as  metallic  money.  We  saw  yesterday  that  about 
$5,000,000  of  gold  coin  bad  to  be  Shipped  bodily  to  the  Argentine 
Republic.  Such  a  thing  is  evidence  of  the  absurdity  of  our  pres- 
ent social  -system.   It  is  not  gold  used  for  t/he  arts  or  sciences. 


32 


DE  LEON^BERRY  DEBATE 


It  is  ^old  used  for  exchange,  and  exchange  under  this  condition 
has  to  be  by  means  of  money  with  all  the  evils  my  friend  refer- 
red to.  Remove  that  method  of  production,  overthrow  the  politi- 
cal State,  estaiblish  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth  or  Indus- 
trial Republic,  and  money  collapses  as  completely  as  I  would 
drop  to  the  center  of  the  earth  if  this  stage  broke  down  and  a 
vacuum  took  its  place,  leaving  me  down  below.  There  is  no  sense 
in  animadverting  on  money.  Of  course,  it  is  bad,  but  how  fool- 
ish it  is  to  scratch  at  a  pimple  that  has  broken  out  on  the  hand 
that  is  getting  more  and  more  sore,  instead  of  making  the  blood 
healthy,  so  that  the  pimple  will  disappear.  You  can  go  on  pick- 
ing at  that  pimple  as  much  as  you  like,  you  cannot  pick  it  out. 
Money  is  one  of  those  pimples  on  the  social  body. 

My  opponent  says  unless  we  can  have  free  men  we  can  have 
no  men  at  all.  That  I  accept.  The  question  is,  what  is  freedom? 
Freedom  is  that  condition  of  society  in  which  a  man  can  work 
when  he  pleases,  at  what  he  pleases,  and  keep  all  that  he  pro- 
duces. The  great  way  to  get  that  is  to  overthrow  the  political 
State  and  establish  the  Socialist  Industrial  Co-operative  Com- 
monwealth. Today  there  can  be  no  freedom.  Money  and  the 
banker  are  neces'sities  of  the  capitalist  State.  Today  men  are 
slaves  because  they  produce  more  than  they  get.  That  is  tha 
condition  of  slavery,  and  of  course,  under  those  conditions  we 
have  no  men.  That  is  why  we  have  this  condition  of  unrest  in 
the  country. 

The  men  at  the  head  of  institutions  today  we  are  told  are  men 
who  know  best.  I  would  like  to  know  what  man  at  the  head  of 
an  institution  is  -doing  any  work.  I  have  looked  into  that  ques- 
tion. Very  few  of  the  institutions  of  the  land  that  are  worth 
mentioning  are  not  run  by  wage  slaves.  Some  get  pretty  good 
wages  and  others  lower  wages,  but  the  men  who  own  the  insti- 
tutions are  not  running  anything.  They  are  spending  their  time 
in  Europe  with  fast  horses  and  faster  women.  They  are  v/ast- 
ing  their  substance.  They  are  not  running  the  country  or  the 
institutions.  Those  who  do  run  the  institutions  are  sm.all  bour- 
geois who  a.re  still  trying  to  save  themelves,  but  the  big  capital- 
ist will  take  care  of  them. 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


33 


As  to  his  plan  of  Socialism,  I  cannot  see  any  Socialism  but  as 
I  have  described.  I  can  assure  you  that  if  Socialism  were  the 
kind  of  thing  my  distinguished  friend  perhaps  thinks  it  is,  the 
thing  v/hich  he  described,  I  would  not  advocate  it.  It  is  ail  the 
single  tax  theory  we  have  heard  so  often,  that  under  Socialism 
the  State  will  order  me  what  ikind  of  handkerchiefs  I  shall  use 
to  Od»1ow  my  patriotic  nose  with.  Socialism  is  nothing  of  the  sort. 
Under  Socialism  the  opportunity  for  work  is  there  and  no  one 
can  live  unless  he  works.  People  will  go  to  work.  A  man  will 
be  anxious  to  work  two  or  three  hours  a  day  gladly  if  he  is  go- 
ing to  keep  all  that  he  produces.  There  will  be  no  danger  of 
anybody  dictating  to  him.   He  is  going  to  dhoose  for  himself. 

THIRD  SPEECH. 
WILLIAM  H.  BERRY. 

I  shall  refer  for  a  moment  to  what  my  distinguished  oppon- 
ent thinks  is  the  exceedingly  insignificant  currency  question.  It 
amuses  me.  I  apprehend  that  when  he  will  have  amputated  that 
excrescence  he  will  discover  himself  somewhat  in  the  condition 
of  the  young  surgeon  who  had  a  very  important  case.  The  pa- 
tient had  a  tumor,. and  he  performed  an  operation  and  removed 
it,  and  he  was  hragging  to  his  fellow  professionals  on  the  sub- 
ject. He  told  them  that  the  tumor  weighed  120  pounds  and  the 
patient  only  weighed  60  after  the  tumor  was  removed.  He  was 
asked,  "Did  you  save  the  patient?^'  "Oh,  no,"  he  said,  "I  saved 
the  tumor."  I  rather  fear  after  this  cura:*ency  proposition  is 
eliminated  that  you  will  discover  that  it  is  something  more  than 
a  mere  experience. 

If  under  the  Socialistic  system  you  are  permitted  to  choose 
your  employment,  you  will  undoubtedly  find  that  the 
easy  jobs  will  be  over-chosen  and  the  product 
will  become  greatly  abundant,  and  that  your  fancy 
notions  of  the  labor  value  will  disappear.  Competition 
will  get  its  nose  in  the  tent,  and  before  you  know  it  the  whole 
canvass  inside  your  Socialistic  system  is  gone  if  ever  you  let 
fellows  compete  for  a  job.    If  you  let  me  dhoose  my  occupation 


34 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


I  am  going  to  choose  the  easy  thing.  You  can  depend  on  me  for 
tha,t.  I  will  choose  the  soft  thing.  I  think  a  whole  lot  of  other 
fellows  will  choose  the  soft  thing,  and  just  as  sure  as  the  soft 
thing  is  over-chosen  just  that  sure  the  soft  thing  will  be  over- 
produced. Just  that  sure  it  will  lose  value  in  spite  of  everything 
you  can  possiMy  do  or  say.  If  you  let  that  proposition  into 
your  game  at  all  it  is  absolutely  gone  down  the  winds. 

I  put  this  proposition.  I  put  it  to  this  audience  once  before. 
I  think  I  will  do  it  again,  it  is  so  apt.  My  brother  has  five  min- 
utes in  which  he  can  refute  it.  Freedom  is  impossible  under  a 
Socialistic  system.  We  have  got  to  have  beef  cattle.  We  are 
going  to  get  them  in  one  of  two  ways.  Either  we  are  going  to 
let  people  who  feel  like  it  choose  to  raise  cattle,  or  we  are  go- 
ing to  elect  somebody  by  a  51  per  cent  vote  whose  'business  it 
will  be  to  pick  out  the  people  who  shall  raise  cattle.  I  do  not 
care  whidh  it  is>,  but  you  are  going  to  do  one  or  the  other.  My 
theory  is  that  you  must  let  us  choose  to  raise  cattle  and  take  the 
consequence  if  we  overproduce  and  give  cheap  (beef  once  in  a 
while.  That  is  my  theory  about  it,  for  in  that  case  you  have 
free  men.  If  you  do  not  you  put  a  man  who  is  built  for  a  law- 
yer in  cattle  raising.  You  dio  all  soirts  of  violence  to  'everything 
that  is  valuable  in  man.  After  you  have  the  cattle  raised  you 
have  to  have  a  butcher.  You  will  get  him  one  way  or  the  other. 
You  will  either  elect  a  man  with  a  51  per  cent  vote  whose  busi- 
ness it  is  to  pick  out  butchers  and  say,  '^We  want  ten  butdhers. 
Ten  butchers  is  all  v/e  can  have.  You  are  a  butcher  or  nothing," 
or  else  you  let  us  compete  and  have  a  whole  lot  of  butchers — if 
it  is  the  thing  we  like  to  do,  let  us  do  it.  We  get  butchering 
cheap,  and  the  cheapness  will  keep  us  away  if  we  get  too  many. 

After  you  get  the  butchers  you  have  the  problem  of  distribu- 
tion before  you  just  as  big  as  ever.  Who  is  going  to  get  sirloin 
and  who  is  going  to  get  inferior  portions?  You  are  going  to  de- 
termine that  in  the  same  way  you  did  the  other.  You  have  to  do 
it.  There  is  no  escape  from  it.  You  have  either  to  elect  a  man 
by  a  51  per  cent  vote,  whose  business  it  will  be  to  say,  "It  is 
your  day  for  shinbone,  and.  Brother  De  Leon,  it  is  your  day  for 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


35 


sirloin."  Either  you  have  got  to  do  that  or  let  us  compete,  and 
then  the  fellow  that  will  give  the  most  for  the  sirloin  will  get  it; 
one  of  the  two.  I  can  see  perfectly  well  that  there  is  some  ex- 
travagance in  that  system.  A  friend  said  something  to  me  the 
other  day.  We  were  sitting  on  my  porch  and  I  think  aibout  sev- 
en or  eight  milkmen  went  by  in  the  course  of  an  hour.  He  said, 
'^There  is  an  illustration.  Under  Socialism  you  would  only  have 
one  milkman  who  would  come  around  here  and  serve  everybody 
on  this  street."  I  said,  "Not  if  I  could  help  it,  you  would  not. 
I  want  to  dhoO'Se  even  my  milkman.  I  do  not  want  you  to  choose 
him  for  me.  I  have  a  preference  in  milkmen  and  would  rather 
pay  one  man  eight  cents  a  quart  than  pay  another  man  seven.  I 
know  it  costs  more  to  have  six  or  eight  men  come  along  there, 
but  I  can  beat  cheapness  to  death.  It  is  not  cheapness  we  want, 
it  is  freedom  we  want.   That  is  the  thing  tbat  develops  men." 

CLOSING  SPEECH. 
DANIEL  DE  LEON. 

This  debate  has  closed  where  some  debates  would  have  com- 
menced. My  distinguis'hed  adversaiy  ihas  drawn  a  picture  of 
Socialism  which  is  a  caricature.  All  I  can  do  is  to  throw  out 
just  one  hint.  He  tells  us  that  the  easy  job  will  be  over-chosen 
and  he  v/ill  choose  the  soft  job.  Do  you  know  anybody  who 
chooses  the  hard  job  today?  I  do  not.  The  difference  between 
the  Socialist  commonwealth  and  the  present  capitalistic  com- 
monwealth is  that  today  the  hardest  jobs  have  to  l)e  chosen  com- 
pulsorily  by  those  who  need  some  kind  <xf  a  job,  and  they  get  paid 
in  proportion  to  the  supply  of  applicants  for  those  jobs.  Under 
Socialism  the  principle  is  entirely  different,  but  to  give  you  the 
fundamental  principle  for  that  would  need  ihalf  an  Qiour  and  I 
have  not  got  it,  so  I  can  only  give  you  the  concluding  principle. 
Under  Socialism,  if  there  is  an  over-supply,  say  of  conductors 
of  cars,  it  would  be  an  implication  tliat  there  is  less  fibre  spent, 
less  laJbor  power  consumed  in  condxicting  a  car,  and  the  conse- 
quence would  be  that  the  hours  of  those  men  would  ihave  to  be 
longer  than  the  hours  of  Iflie  men  who  applied  for  jobs  that  are 


36 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


disaga^eable*  It  is  the  appIicatioTi  of  the  law  of  exchange  value 
to  whicih  I  referred  at  the  beginning  of  my  address,  as  the  dyna- 
mo under  capitalist  society.  It  is  the  application  of  that.  There 
is,  and  I  orepeat  it,  nobody  today  looking  gladly  for  a  hard  job. 
People  take  whatever  job  is  open  to  them. 

My  distinguis^hed  friend  referred  to  himself  as  a  brickmaker. 
He  will  allow  me  to  say  I  diO  not  believe  he  chose  brickmaking  be- 
cause he  loved  bricks.  He  chose  brickmaking  because  he  thought 
he  would  make  more  money  according  to  his  theory,  getting  more 
than  'he  expended  in  getting  it.  I  do  not  believe  in  a  civilized 
community  a  gentleman  with  his  shape  of  head  would  adopt  sudh 
miserable  work  and  spend  his  life  upon  making  'bricks.  That  can 
be  done  in  a  few  hours  and  he  devote  his  talents  to  other  things. 

I  refer  to  fhis  often  repeated  caricature  of  Socialism,  which 
shows  he  does  not  grasp  the  law  of  exchange-value.  He  says, 
first,  that  soft  jobs  will  be  over-crowded;  secondly,  the  supply 
will  be  excessive.  That  does  not  hold.  I  repeat  it,  in  proportion 
to  the  supply  of  labor  for  a  certain  thing  you  can  tell  Whether 
much  or  little  fibre  is  expended  in  its  production,  and  the  relative 
supply  for  this,  that  and  the  other  job  establis)hes  the  numaber  of 
hours  that  are  equivalent  with  this  condition.  Then  we  would 
lhave  long  hours  m^yhe  for  some  on  account  of  the  work  being 
pleasant,  and  have  short  hours  for  others,  but  the  hours  of  one 
cannot  exceed  the  necessary  hours  for  physical  exercise,  for  the 
reason  that  the  productivity  of  the  Commonwealth  will  ?oe  so 
much  larger. 

I  will  use  my  closing  minutes  with  a  rapid  survey  of  the  posi- 
tion. The  proposition,  the  trusit  proposition,  the  back  gate  or  the 
foundation  of  the  land,  and  ail  these  various  things,  you  cannot 
approach  and  cannot  understand  unless  you  grasp  the  law  of  ex- 
change-value. That  law  of  exchange-value  disables  the  man 
who  does  not  own  the  best  machinery  for  his  form  -of  work.  That 
determines  the  usefulness  of  the  trust  as  the  best  implement 
possible,  and  just  as  soon  as  the  trust  presents  itself  then  the 
decree  of  civilization  is  that  the  trust  shall  be  saved,  and  that  it 
shall  be  saved  in  the  only  way  it  can  be  saved,  namely,  by  bring- 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


37 


ing  sode^ty  to  that  conidition  from  wihi<sh  our  ancestors  mov^d 
when  they  had  to  enter  into  the  valley  lof  the  shadow  of  death 
of  capitalism,  leaving  communism  behind. 

We  have  to  rear  that  social  system  in  wlhich  the  government 
consists  of  the  people  wiho  are  dlirecting  production  instead  of 
the  people  whose  sole  worik  must  be  to  cheat  the  underlings  un- 
der them.  We  must  Ihave  a  social  system  which  outlines  with 
the  truth,  and  only  tha,t  is  true  wihich  fits  all  the  facts,  the  fact 
of  the  law  of  exchange-value,  the  fact  of  the  necessity  of  the 
most  perfect  tool,  the  fact  that  tha,t  mosft  perfect  tool  of  today, 
the  trust,  rings  the  knell  of  political  government  and  ushers  in 
the  government  of  representatives  of  industrial  occupations, 
rhat  proposition  fits  all  the  facts,  and  as  it  fits  all  the  facts  the 
Socialists  work  along  that  line.  As  far  as  I  know,  there  is  no 
other  movement  that  is  making  any  progress.  All  others  grow 
like  cows,  tail  down  toward  the  earth. 

THE  OHAIRiMAN. 

The  debate  between  the  speakers  is  mow  closed.  When  we 
came  we  expected  to  hear  Socialism  as  (a  cure  for  the  trust.  We 
have  heard  very  little  about  trusts  and  a  great  deal  about  ^So- 
cialism pro  and  con.  I  rather  thought  the  proposition  might 
have  been  announced  that  the  formation  of  the  trus^t  was  only  a 
step  toward  the  introduction  of  Socialism.  That  is  a  proposition 
which  is  quite  open  to  debate,  and  wOi:ich  is  very  interesting,  but 
it  is  too  late  to  open  that  now. 

According  to  the  custom  of  these  meetings,  I  will  state  that 
it  is  mow  open  for  any  one  to  ask  any  relevant  question  of  either 
of  the  speakers,  but  in  this  we  follow  «a  rule  which  I  believe  has 
been  announced  by  both  speakers  in  their  objection  to  monopoly, 
so  that  no  lady  or  gentleman  is  expected  to  ask  more  than  one 
question  or  to  take  more  than  two  minutes  in  presenting  the 
question,  and  then  the  speaker  will  answer  it. 

A  GENTLEMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Berry,  wfhy  sihould 
the  discipline  of  an  industrial  government  be  less  desirable  than 
the  discipline  of  the  armies  that  have  fougiht  for  political  free- 


38 


DE  LEON'BERRY  DEBATE 


dom. 

MR.  BERRY.  I  presume  discipline  is  a  necesisity  of  all  or- 
ganizationis.  This  thougiht  would  lead  me  into  a  very  large  dis- 
cusision  if  I  were  to  follow  it.  I  d!o  not  Ibelieve  in  armies  at  all. 
I  think  the  most  ridiculous  thing  on  the  face  lof  the  earth  today 
are  those  armies  we  ar-e  mobilizing  for  various  purposes.  I  be- 
lieve that  they  could  not  be  recruited  if  we  had  mionopoly  elimin- 
ated at  the  bottom,  and  a  condition  set  up  where  the  demand  for 
labor  in  productive  enterprises  would  always  and  everywhere  ex- 
ceed the  supply.  Ylou  could  not  hire  a  man  to  go  to  war  if  he 
oould  always  do  better  at  home  than  he  can  in  war.  Therefore, 
I  question  the  whole  proposition  of  discipline.  I  know  perfect- 
ly well,  as  a  manager  of  a  productive  enterprise,  that  a  man  who 
oo-ordinates  an  enterprise  must  have  control  of  it,  but  that  con- 
triol  of  it  must  be  with  free,  independent  men.  Competition  is 
reprehensible  only  when  it  is  of  the  jug-handle  tjrpe,  when  it  is 
all  on  one  side,  when  the  employer  does  not  have  to  compete* 
and  the  empJoye  does.  When  competition  is  like  a  loving  cup 
that  we  pass  around  at  our  various  functions,  and  has  a  handle 
on  both  sides  of  it,  then  there  is  nothing  the  matter  with  com- 
petition, and  then  discipline  is  quite  a  different  thing  from 
what  ordinarily  arises  in  one's  mind  in  thinking  aibout  it. 

A  GENTLEMAN.  How  can  a  trust,  or  even  Socialism,  savei 
the  family  or  even  the  State?  He  was  saying  about  there  being 
no  money. 

THE  CHAIRMAN.  To  whom  is  the  question  addressed? 

THE  GENTLEMAN.   To  Professor  De  Leon. 

MR.  DE  LEON.  The  question  is,  how  can  the  trust  or  Social- 
ism save  the  family  or  State  ?  I  do  not  understand  the  question. 

THE  GENTLEMAN.    You  said  wipe  out  state  lines. 

MR.  DE  LEON.  Yes,  wipe  out  state  lines  and  establish  in  lieu 
of  state  lines  the  industries,  representatives  of  industry.  How 
will  that  save  the  family? 

THE  GENTLEMAN.  They  say  Socialism  Ibreaks  up  the  fam- 
ily. I  always  heard  that  it  would  lead  to  free  love.  They  do  not 
believe  in  the  Bi(ble. 

MR.  DE  LEON,  As  far  as  I  can  judge,  I  think  the  capitalist 


DE  LEON -BERRY  DEBATE 


39 


is  the  one  who  breaks  up  the  family.  He«  sends  the  husband  to 
look  for  a  job  anywhere.  He  throws  the  wife  in  the  mar'ket.  He 
grabs  children  from  the  cradle.  Socialism  cannot  be  worse  than 
that.  I  do  not  understand  that  question.  Today  the  family  is 
smashed  by  capitalistic  conditiions  under  the  private  ownership 
of  the  tool  of  production.  Overthrow  that.  Have  that  which  is 
real  Socialism,  not  State  Socialism, — that  is  not  Socialism  at  all. 
Overthrow  the  capitalist  sys,tem.  Which  means  organize  the  in- 
dustries of  the  country  so  that  their  representatives  can  meet 
and  make  laws  for  production,  and  I  do  not  believe  there  will  be^ 
any  wife  who  will  run  away  into  a  factory.  I  do  not  believe  there 
will  'be  any  man  who  will  go  out  West  looking  for  a  job.  I  do  not 
believe  there  will  be  any  more  she-tov/ns  in  Massachusetts  and 
he-towns  in  Pennsylvania,  a  disgrace  to  civilization. 

How  Socialism  would  destroy  the  family  ?  It  is  one  of  the 
slanders  of  capitalism.  You  might  as  well  say  Socialism  will 
produce  ars^on  or  do  anything  else, — that  men  under  Socialism 
will  walk  on  their  heads.  We  have  heard  such  things,  but  we 
hear  less  and  less  of  them.  Socialism  will  save  the  family.  To- 
day the  family  does  not  exist  de  facta.  Ladies  will  not  think  I 
am  rude  when  I  say  that  1flie  best  of  capitalist  'society  recognizes 
that  houses  of  prostitution  cannot  be  destroyed  because  under 
capitalism  they  are  a  necessity. 

A  GENTLEMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  De  Leon  a  ques- 
tion. With  reference  to  value,  he  isays  that  the  amount  of  labor 
in  an  article  constitutes  its  value,  or  determines  its  value.  I 
would  like  to  ask  him  whether  if  he  built  an  ocean  steamship  on 
the  Rocky  Mountains  and  another  in  the  Delaware  River,  the  one 
on  the  Rocky  Mountains,  which  presumably  has  required  a  great- 
er amount  of  labor  to  construct  than  the  lone  in  the  Delaware 
River,  would  be  of  greater  value  than  the  one  in  the  river. 

MR.  DE  LEON.  If  anybody  is  insane  enough  to  build  a  steam- 
boat there  he  deserves  to  get  stranded  on  top  of  the  mountain. 

THE  GENTLEMAN.  The  question  is  the  amount  of  labor 
power  in  the  article.  If  the  steamboat  on  the  Rocky  Mountains 
required  a  greater  amoimt  of  labor  to  produce,  would  that 
steamboat  then  have  greater  value  than  the  one  in  the  river  ? 


40 


DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 


MR.  DE  LEON.  No,  that  steamboat  would  have  no  value  at 
all  for  it  is  no  oommodity.  I  said  ttiat  all  commodities  have 
their  value  dependent  upon  the  amount  of  social  labor  necessary 
for  their  production.  Your  isteamboat  on  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
by  the  very  fact  of  its  being  built  on  top  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, is  excluded  from  the  market,  is  excluded  from  the  category 
of  commodities.  It  is  a  freak  production,  and  freak  productions 
have  no  value. 

THE  GENTLEMAN.  Then  it  follows  the  amount  of  labor  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  value  'of  the  article. 

MR.  DE  LEON.  Oh,  no.  If  you  mean  that  the  amount  of  la- 
bor, regardlesis  of  wihat  it  is  expended  on,  has  nothing  to  do  with 
value,  I  stated  that  myiself .  I  said  the  amount  of  Istbor  socially 
necessary,  so  that  if  a  man  were  today  to  weave  with  an  old- 
style  loom  !he  would  produce  about  one  yard  of  cloth  a  week,  and 
that  yard  of  cloth  is  produced  by  an  instrument  that  is  rejected 
by  society.  It  is  no  longer  socially  necessary,  but  it  is  the  an- 
tediluvian labor  which  we  lhave  outgrown.  To  say,  therefore, 
that  labor  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  is  to  deny  my  definition. 
The  value  of  a  commodity  depends  upon  the  amount  of  socially 
necessary  labor  power  to  produce  it.  It  means  that  the  thing 
muist  be  a  commodity.  A  steam-boat  on  top  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains is  no  commodity.  It  means  it  must  be  produced  by  socially 
necessary  labor  power.  The  man  who  spends  a  whole  week  iri 
producing  one  yard  of  cloth  is  not  ispending  •socially  necessary 
labor,  but  wasting  socially  unnecessary  laibor  power.  The  thing 
must  be  a  commodity.  It  must  have  a  market  in  which  it  is  to- 
ibe  sold.  I  am  pretty  sure  a  steamiboat  on  top  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  has  no  market. 


De  Leon-Carmody 


Individualism  vs  Socialism 

DANIEL  DE  LEON 


De  Leon,  dn  his  inimitable  fashion,  trains  his  guns 
on  the  "Individualism"  heralded  by  the  Capitalist 
Class  and  its  retainers,  and  exposes  it  in  its  true 
colors.  So  effectively  did  he  do  it  that  his  oppon- 
ent abandoned  the  field  completely,  and  instead  of 
debating  "Individualism  vs.  Socialism,*'  used  his 
time  to  attack  Socialism  as  he  conceived  of  it.  The 
question  of  confiscation  is  treated  at  length  by  both 
debaters. 


NEW  YORK  LABOR  NEWS  COMPANY 


40  pp.  PRICE  10  CENTS 


45  ROSE  STREET 


NEW  YORK 


Woman  Under 
Socialism 

By  August  Bebel 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  ORIGINAL  GERMAN  OF 
THE  THIRTY-THIRD  EDITION  BY  DANIEL  DE  LEON. 

The  Woman  Question  is  not  a  question  by  itself;  it  is  a  part 
of  the  great  social  problem.  Proceeding  along  this  line,  Bebel's 
work  is  an  exhaustive  analysis  of  the  economic  position  of 
woman  in  the  past  and  present.  Despite  the  boasts  of  Capi- 
talist Christianity  the  facts  show  that  under  Capitalism  wo- 
man, especially  of  the  working  class,  is  degraded  and  dwarfed 
physically  and  mentally,  while  the  word  home  is  but  a  mock- 
ery. From  such  condition  of  parenthood  the  child  is  stunted 
before  its  birth,  and  the  miasmas,  bred  from  woman's  economic 
slavery,  rise  so  high  that  even  the  gilded  houses  of  the  capi- 
talist class  are  polluted.  Under  Socialism,  woman,  having 
economic  freedom  equal  with  man,  will  develop  mentally  and 
physically,  and  the  mentally  and  physically  stunted  and  dwarfed 
children  of  the  capitalist  system  will  give  way  to  a  new  race. 
The  blow  that  breaks  the  chains  of  economic  slavery  from 
the  workingman  will  free  woman  also. 

Cloth,  400  Pages,  Price  $1.00 


New  York  Labor  News  Co*, 

45  ROSE  STREET,   NEW  YORK. 


Woman's  Suffrage 

An  Address  Delivered  by  Daniel  De  Leon  under  the 
Auspices  of  the  Socialist  Women  of  Greater  New  York, 
at  Cooper  Union,  New  York  City,  May  8th,  1909. 

A  luminous  lecture  upon  a  timely  subject  and  viewing  that 
subject  from  the  lofty  heights  of  historic  perspective.  History 
alone  can  show  WHY  woman  occupies  today  the  position  she 
does  and  WHY  she  is  now  striving  to  emerge  from  that  posi- 
tion. 

CHAPTER  HEADS: 

The  Class  Struggle 
The  Suffrage 
Arguments  of  Antis 
Arguments  of  Pros 
Conclusions 

A  pamphlet  of  48  pages  that  holds  the  interest  from  start 
to  finish.  Good  paper,  good  clear  print,  high-grade  paper  cover. 

Price  lO  Cent^ 


VULGAR 
ECONOMY 

OR 

A  Critical  Analyst  of  Marx  Analyzed 

By  DANIEL  DB  LEON. 

A  work  exposing:  the  false  reasoning  and  sycophancy 
of  the  official  iJconomists  of  Capitalism,  proving  them 
to  be  nothing  but  perverters  of  the  science  of  Political 
Economy,  in  the  interest  of  their  employers — the  Cap- 
italist Class.  Contains  also  a  few  prefatory  remarks  on 
the  life  of  the  author  and  the  subject,  and  a  fine  pic- 
ture of  Daniel  De  Leon. 

04  Pages,  Paper  Cover. 
PRICE     FIFTEEN  CENTS 


New  York  Labor  News  Company 

45  Rose  St.,    New  YorK 


FIFTEEN 
QUESTIONS 

By  Daniel  De  Leon. 

FIFTEEN  QUESTIONS  is  a  series  of  articles 
dealing  with  some  of  the  economic  and  political  prob- 
lems of  the  day.  It  is  presented  in  the  form  of  an  ac- 
ceptance of  he  challenge  by  a  Roman  Catholic  paper, 
"The  Visitor,"  Providence^  R.  I.  This  paper  pro- 
pounded fifteen  questions  intended  to  silence  the 
advocates  of  Socialism.  To  what  ex  ent  the  paper 
—or  those  of  its  followers  who  would  have  acted  upon 
its  suggestions — succeeded,  the  reader  will  be  in  a  po- 
sition 10  judge  best  for  himself.  The  book  is  written 
in  a  clear  lucid  style  and  reveals  an  authorship  of 
highest  rank.  The  author,  the  late  Daniel  De  Leon, 
was  a  scholar  of  unusual  attainmen's  and  well  qualified 
to  state  the  position  of  the  Socialists.-— T/?^  Bookseller, 
N ewsdeaJer  and  Stationer. 

PRICE  TWE  VTY  CENTS 

New  York  Labor  News  Co., 

1.-  Rosi:  stri<:i-:t,  xi<:w  vokk. 


I 


High  Cost  of  Living 

By  Arnold  Petersen 

And 

Money 

By  Daniel  De  Leon 

An  analysis  of  the  problems  of  high  prices,  money  and  corre- 
lated matters.  Disposes  of  the  various  causes  usually  ad- 
vanced by  the  apologists  of  capitalism  to  explain  these  prob- 
lems. A  demonstration  of  the  s  lundness  of  Marxian,  1.  e.. 
Socialist  or  Scientific  Political  Economy. 

50  PAGBS,  PAPER  COVER 
PRICE  IB  CENTS 


NEW  YORK  LABOR  NEWS  CO. 

4o  ROSE  STREET  ]VEW  YORK 


AS  TO  POLITICS.  (A  Symposium.) 

BERGER'S  HIT  AND  MISSES 

BURNING  QUESTION  OF  TRADES  UNIONISM 

DE  LEON-BERRY  DEBATE 

DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE 

*DE  LEON-HARRIMAN  DEBATE 

FIFTEEN  QUESTIONS 

FLASHLIGHTS  OF  THE  AMSTERDAM  CONGRESS 
FATHER  GASSONIANA 
MARX  ON  MALLOCK 
MONEY 

PREAMBLE  OF  THE  INDUSTRIAL  WORKERS  OF 

THE  WORLD 
REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION 
SOCIALISM  vs.  ANARCHISM 
TWO  PAGES  FROM  ROMAN  HISTORY 
THE  TRUSTS 
UNITY 

VULGAR  ECONOMY 
WATSON  ON  THE  GRIDIRON 
WOMAN  SUFFRAGE 
WHAT  MEANS  THIS  STRIKE? 

ENGELS,  FREDERICK:  Development  of  Socialism  from 

Utopia  to  Science. 
MARX,  KARL:  Eigfhteenth  Bnimaire 
LASSALLE,  FERDINAND:  Franz  von  Sickingen. 
SUE,  EUGENE:  Mysteries  of  the  People,  21  volumes. 
KAUTSKY,  KARL:  The  Working  Class 

The  Capitalist  Class 

The  Class  Struggle 
"  "       The  Socialist  Republic 

BEBEL,  AUGUST:  Woman  under  Socialism. 

*Out  of  print. 

NEW  YORK  L.ABOR  NEWS  COMPANY 
AS  ROSE  ST.,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


Price  Ten  Cents. 


DeLeon  -  Carmody 
I  Debate 


Individualism  vs.  Socialism 

DANIEL   DE  LEON 

Editor  New  York  Daily  People 

THOMAS  F.  CARMODY 

Attorney  General  State  of  New  York 

UNDER  THE  AUSPICES  OF  THE  PEOPLE'S  FORUM 


Stenographically  Reported  by  Mr.  Emmet  W.  Connors 
Delivered  at  Proctor's  Theatre,  Troy,  N.  Y.,  April  14,  1912 


ISSUKU  BY  THK  X ACTIONAL  EXECUTIVE 
COMMITTEE    SOCIALIST    LiVBOU  PARTY 


FotirtH  Edition 


Copyrig-hted  1912 
Phoenix 


DANIEL  DE  LEON 


i 


FOKENOTICE. 

What  will  become  one  of  the  most  historical  debates  ever 
delivered  in  this  country  is  the  one  dealing  with  the  sub- 
jects covered  in  this  pamphlet,  and  in  interest  is  bound  to 
exceed  in  its  far-reaching  effect  any  effort  ever  presented 
to  the  public  on  these  most  important  topics. 

Here  we  have  Mr.  Daniel  De  Leon,  of  New  York  City, 
Editor  of  the  Daily  and  Weekly  People,  representing  So- 
cialism, and  Mr.  Thomas  E.  Carmody,  Attorney  General 
of  the  State  of  New  YorTc,  presenting  the  subject  of  In- 
dividualism. 

Heie  are  two  contestants,  champions  of  their  presenta- 
tion, holding  opposite  views  on  these  subjects,  and  which 
are  now  considered  to  be  of  the  most  intimate  interest  to 
the  welfare  of  humanity. 

Two  scholars  of  high  attainment.  Mr.  De  Leon  with  a 
reputation  which  is  world-wide  on  economics,  politics  and 
l&w,  and  Mr.  Carmody  one  of  the  best  orators  and  students 
of  American  politics  and  law. 

These  men,  meeting  in  debate  on  these  important  topics, 
the  result  of  which  is  to  produce  a  battle  of  the  keenest  in- 
tellects, and  the  most  startling,  momentous  intellectual  bat- 
tle since  the  Civil  War.  Why?  Because  the  war  had  for 
its  object  the  release  of  four  million  slaves,  while  the  pres- 
ent war  now  going  on  in  society  between  the  classes,  the 
capitalist  class  and  the  proletariat  or  working  class,  means 
the  final  abolition  of  the  slave  markets  of  the  world,  or 
rather  the  abolition  of  the  wage  system  and  also,  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  present  forms  of  government  in  all  countries 
to  be  substituted  by  the  co-operative  or  industrial  common- 
wealth, which  in  turn  means  Socialism. 


A  complete  stenographic  account  of  this  memorable  meet- 
ing has  now  been  submitted  for  publication  in  a  pamphlet 
and  is  bound  to  reach  a  very  wide  distribution  owing  to  its 
value  to  the  propagation  of  information  concerning 
Socialism. 

No  propaganda  meeting  will  be  successfully  terminated 
without  offering  for  sale  this  pamphlet. 

No  militant  Socialist  or  militant  anti-Socialist  should 
be  without  the  information  herein  treated. 

Here  is  one  paragraph  of  Mr.  Carmody^s  which  clearly 
ehows  the  close  line  which  he  has  drawn : 

''Here  is  where  I  intend  to  nail  Socialism  to  the  cross 
and  keep  it  there.  I  want  somebody  to  tell  the  laborer 
who  is  working  in  the  shoe  factory,  or  whose  boys  and  girls 
are  working  for  the  purpose  of  earning  an  honest  livelihood, 
is  there  any  remedy  for  that  condition  ?  Where  do  you  find 
a  remedy  in  that  policy  of  Anarchy  and  confiscation,  which 
provides  that  public  utilities  shall  be  controlled  by  a  com- 
mon ownership,  and  that  you  acquire  p  3  utilities  by 
confiscation 

From  Mr.  De  Leon's  reply: 

"A  word,  in  connection  with  'Confiscation'  as  to  what 
the  Revolutionary  Fathers  did.  I  refer  my  distinguished 
adversary  to  the  fiscal  history  of  (Jeorge  Ill's  troubles.  The 
colonists  took  vastly  more  than  Mr.  Carmody  imagines.  To 
gauge  how  much  they  took,  look  at  the  subsequent  famines 
in  India.  Unable  to  keep  its  hands  upon  what  it  consid- 
ered its  legitimate  property  in  the  colonies,  the  British 
Crown  had  to  fall  back  upon  the  Hindoos  to  recoup  itself. 
Socialism  does  not,  can  not  contemplate  the  'confiscation* 
of  existing  wealth,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  wealth 
of  Bociety  to-day  IS  the  property  of  the  working  class;  they 


produced  it.  They  will  only  be  taking  their  own — just  aa 
the  colonists  did.'^ 

In  the  publication  of  this  debate  it  is  fitting  to  make 
mention  of  the  work  of  the  People^s  Forum,  of  Troy,  N.  Y., 
as  an  educational  factor,  through  the  dissemination  of 
knowledge  on  "present  day  problems/^  as  inaugurated  by 
the  Enquirer's  Club  of  that  city. 

This  was  the  first  fonim  of  the  kind  started  in  this 
country  which  operated  under  a  platform  which  called 
for  lectures  or  talks  on  "present  day  problems'' ;  the  lec- 
tures or  talks  to  be  followed  by  a  discussion  of  the  sub- 
jects presented. 

Its  far-reaching  effect  is  in  directing  the  minds  of  the 
people  to  the  problems  confronting  the  nation,  which  are 
pressing  for  solution.  The  debate  that  is  the  subject  of 
this  pamphlet  is  a  fruit  of  the  efforts  of  the  Forum. 

Particularly  at  this  time  are  the  subjects  of  Socialism, 
as  representing  the  incoming  order  of  society,  and  Capi- 
talism, as  re-'-esenting  the  present  order  of  our  develop- 
ment, of  pax^nount  interest. 

Locals,  Sections  and  other  progressive  organizations,  as 
well  as  all  others  who  desire  reliable  information  on  a 
subject  that  is  the  burning  issue  of  the  day,  should  place 
their  orders  for  same  at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 

Price  to  be  at  the  mte  of  $64.  per  thousand.  Single 
copies,  ten  cents.  This  price  does  not  xnclude  postage 
or  express  charges. 

Address, 

F.  C.  Phoenix, 

Chairman,  People's  Forum, 
Troy,  N.  Y. 


DE  LEON-CAEMODY  DEBATE. 

Delivered  at  Proctor^s  Theatre,  Troy,  N.  Y.,  on  Sunday 
afternoon,  April  14,  1912,  at  the  closing  session  of  the 
People's  Forum,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Enquirer^s  Club. 
Fred  C.  Phoenix,  Chairman.  Daniel  De  Leon,  Editor, 
Daily  and  Weehly  People,  of  New  York  City,  National 
Organ  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party.  Hon.  Thomas  P. 
Carmody,  Attorney  General  of  the  State  of  New  Yorh 


DIKECT  PRESENTATION. 
DANIEL  DE  LEON. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

When  the  program  was  put  in  my  hands  a  few  hours 
ago,  and  I  noticed  it  was  ^^Individualism  vs.  Socialism'^ 
I  thought  the  proper  order  of  the  debate  should  have  been 
that  the  representative  of  Anti-Socialism  should  speak  first. 
The  title  "Individualism  vs.  Socialism'^  implies  the  be- 
lief that  the  term  ^^^Individualism^^  needs  no  definition.  I 
ehall  prove  to  you  that  this  is  an  error.  I  shall  begin,  how- 
ever, by  stating,  as  I  shall  demonstrate  in  my  closing 
remarks,  that  we  of  the  Socialist  movement,  hold  that  we 
are  the  real  promoters  of  Individualism,  or  Individuality, 
in  the  country.  I  put  that  as  my  thesis,  and  that  is  what 
I  shall  argue. 

Let  us  look  at  the  representatives  of  the  ruling  class 
to-day.  They  are  leading  men ;  they  are  leading  statesmen. 
I  shall  begin  by  quoting  the  present  incumbent  of  the 
presidential  chair.  President  Taft  admits  that  as  things 
are,  they  ought  not  to  be  in  many  respects.  He  admits 
that  opportunities  are  not  equal  to  all.  He  proposes  to 
remedy  them  in  a  certain  way.  His  leading  opponent  is  still 
more  emphatic;  I  mean  Colonel  Eoosevelt.  He,  not  only 
contends  that  as  things  are  to-day,  they  ought  not  to  be; 
not  only  does  he  say  that  opportunities  are  not  equal,  he 
boldly  asserts  that  opportunities  are  unequal,  and  that 
there  is  no  square  deal  in  the  country.  I  am  not  quoting 
obscure  persons.  My  distinguished  opponent  may  per- 
haps reject  the  utterances  of  two  Eepublicans.  Let  me 
now  quote  the  views  of  representative  men  of  his  own, 
the  Democratic  camp.    A  gentleman  who  has  been  three 


i  DB  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

times  honored  with  the  presidential  nomination,  Mr. 
Bryan,  holds  to  the  language  of  Roosevelt,  or,  rather, 
Roosevelt  holds  his  language  on  the  subject  that  I  have 
mentioned.  He  says:  '^The  common  people  are  being 
thro\m  down  in  the  interest  of  plutocracy.^^  If  Mr.  Bryan 
is  not  acceptable  to  my  distinguished  opponent,  let  me 
quote  Governor  Woodrow  Wilson  of  New  Jersey,  also  a 
iDemocrat.  He  says:  ^^The  days  of  small  competition  are 
gone  by,  and  we  have  to  adjust  the  institutions  of  the 
country  in  such  a  way  that  an  equal  opportunity  can  be 
restored  to  the  people.  The  doors  of  opportunity  are 
double-bolted.*^  If  Governor  Woodrow  Wilson  is  not 
quite  acceptable,  let  me  take  another  candidate,  two  of 
them  in  a  bunch,  seeing  they  travel  together.  Champ 
Clark  and  Underwood.  As  you  will  notice  I  am  only 
quoting  presidential  timber.  Both  say:  *^The  country  is 
taking  a  header  towards  destruction.**  I  am  quoting  from 
Champ  Clark's  campaign  speeches  in  Missouri  and  Illi- 
nois, where  the  people  stood  by  him  in  the  primaries.  He 
etid:  ^^We  are  steering  towards  a  French  Revolution  on 
tccount  of  the  unequal  opportunities  that  the  majority  of 
Ihe  people  are  being  held  to.**  If  Champ  Clark  and  Un* 
derwood,  traveling  in  the  same  boat,  are  not  acceptable  to 
my  distinguished  adversary,  I  shall  quote  Governor  Jud- 
Bon  Harmon  of  Ohio,  also  a  leading  presidential  candidate 
on  the  Democratic  side.  In  answer  to  Roosevelt's  address 
before  the  Columbus  constitutional  convention,  he  stated 
that  the  conditions  which  Mr.  Roosevelt  complains  of  are 
there,  but  they  are  not  to  be  met  by  the  measures  which 
lie  proposes.  In  short,  the  situation  is  this:  Prom  the 
mouths  of  these  leading  representatives  of  the  present  order 
of  things,  we  have  the  statement  ihat  existing  condi- 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  7 

tions  do  not  promote  the  welfare  of  the  majority  of  the 
people.  It  matters  not  that  they  each  propose  different 
methods,  and  that  the  measures  that  they  propose  are  dif- 
ferent from  the  methods  of  Socialism,  or  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party  in  particular.  It  is  enough  that  their  diag- 
nosis, and  our  diagnosis  agree  exactly  as  to  present  con- 
ditions. However  different  their  measures,  they  are  agreed 
among  themselves  that  present  social  conditions  are  the 
conditions  of  mass  ill-being. 

Before  proceeding  further  along  this  line,  let  us  be  clear 
upon  the  definition  of  the  word  ^^Individualism.''  As  I 
Btarted  saying,  the  word  seems  to  be  a  word  of  accepted 
eignificance;  but,  in  the  language  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 
when  society  reaches  the  point  that  spells  revolution,  then 
every  single  term  is  summoned  to  the  bar  of  the  people  and 
must  be  re-examined  on  the  same  principle  that  worn- 
out  coin  is  re-examined.  I  shall  prove  to  you  that  the 
word  ^'Individualism''  as  it  is  used  by  the  men  who  are 
against  Socialism,  is  a  word  that  no  longer  represents  the 
^'coinage"  that  it  once  represented.  It  is  a  counterfeit,  or 
is  found  to  have  been  worn  out  beyond  all  original  sem- 
blance. The  essential  thing  is  to  define  the  word. 

iWhat  does  ^^Individualismi"  mean?  "Individualism/* 
means  that  state  of  things  in  man  or  woman  that  makes 
him  or  her  a  strong  individuality;  that  makes  him  or  her 
a  strong  man  or  a  strong  woman;  that  makes  him  a  healthy 
man  and  her  a  healthy  woman.  There  is  another  term, 
intimately  connected  with  "Individuality,"  that  I  might 
as  well  cover  now.  That  is  "survival  of  the  fittest."  That 
phrase  is  much  bandied  about.  We  are  told  that  we  hare 
the  "survival  of  the  fittest"  now,  and  that  that  should  be 
enough  to  ehut  the  mouths  of  the  Socialists.    The  ^'fiur- 


8  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

vival  of  the  fittest^'  means  the  fittest  for  given  conditions 

— and  the  ^^fittesf'  is  not  always  the  "best/' 

The  fittest  in  mud  is  the  mud  eel.  No  healthy  man  or 
woman  can  live  in  mud,  and,  consequently,  the  fittest  for 
those  conditions  are  the  mud  eels.  To  use  the  term  in  the 
sense  that  opponents  of  Socialism  do,  is  a  travesty  on  "sur- 
vival of  the  fittest/'  The  term  means,  he  who  is  fittest 
for  a  certain  social  condition,  and  the  question  comes  back. 
Are  present  social  conditions  such  that  they  will  develop 
the  highest  and  best  type  fit  for  our  ideals  of  the  twen- 
tieth century?   We  Socialists  say,  No.    And  we  prove  it. 

Take  a  forest.  That  forest  consists  of  trees.  It  requires 
individual  fine  trees  to  make  a  collectively  fine  forest.  If 
the  trees  are  too  close  together  they  will  interfere  with  their 
individual  growths.  Under  that  condition  of  things  you 
will  not  have  a  good  forest;  you  will  have  jungles.  He 
who,  therefore,  has  the  collective  thing,  a  forest,  in  mind, 
must  have  individually  good  trees  in  mind,  and  he  who 
understands  what  individually  good  trees  mean,  must  nec- 
essarily imply  the  collective  thing,  a  good  forest.  But 
trees  are  inanimate  beings,  let  us  treat  with  animate  beings. 

Let  us  take  an  army.  An  army  depends  upon  the  in- 
dividuality of  its  soldiers.  Unless  each  individual  soldier 
is  properly  trained  in  militarism,  unless  this  individuality 
of  a  soldier  is  properly  instilled,  the  army  is  an  impossi- 
bility. The  general  would  have  a  mob,  and  he  would 
be  licked  by  the  other  army.    What  does  this  imply? 

It  implies  that  Individualism  does  not  deny  socialistic 
or  altruistic,  or  collectivistic  requirements.  For  the  very 
reason  that  the  soldiers  must  be  individually  well  trained, 
all  of  them  must  give  up  a  certain  portion  of  their  in- 
dividualism to  the  whole,  without  which  there  could  be  nQ 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  & 
organization.  Without  altruism  in  the  army,  each  soldier 
would  pull  his  own  way,  and  you  might  have  anything  you 
please,  but  an  army  you  would  not  have.  It  requires  in- 
dividuality, plus  the  surrender  of  part  of  yourself,  and  that 
is  a  point  that  Socialism  teaches — ^man  is  a  social  being, 
and  the  real  capabilities  of  his  individuality  cannot  de- 
velop so  long  as  he  is  not  in  society,  merging  part  of  his 
individuality  into  the  whole. 

Now  then,  that  being  the  goal  to  be  attained — strong 
individuality — an  individuality  wise  enough  to  realize  that 
the  acquired  individuality  will  be  as  zero  unless  it  is  civil- 
ized enough  to  yield  part  of  itself  to  the  whole ; — that  being 
the  goal^  how  does  capitalism  meet  the  requirements? 

We  charge  modern  society^  that  is  capitalism,  with  crush- 
ing out  individuality.  Its  methods  do  the  opposite  of 
bringing  about  individuality.  Its  methods,  taking  the 
illustration  of  the  forest,  bring  about  the  jungle.  Its 
methods,  taking  the  illustration  of  the  army,  bring  about  a 
mob,  and  whenever  you  have  a  mob,  you  have  the  man  on 
horseback  not  far  away — a  circumstance  that  explains  the 
presence  and  existence  of  Colonel  Roosevelt  to-day  in  the 
field. 

Let  me  take  a  few  illustrations,  in  widely  opposite  ends 
of  present  society,  to  illustrate  what  capitalism  does  for  in- 
dividualism. It  is  fair  treatment.  Capitalism  has  had 
the  world  to  itself.  Spokesmen  of  Capitalism  admit,  as 
all  those  whom  I  have  quoted  do,  that  things  are  not  the 
way  they  ought  to  be.  They  have  had  society  so  long  in 
their  hands  that  well  may  we  hold  them  responsible  for  the 
ills  that  they  admit  afflict  society. 

Take  two  illustrations  from  the  extreme  ends  of  the 


10  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

social  system,  such  as  are  conceivable  only  in  a  Democratic* 
Bepublican-Capitalistic  order  of  society. 

Here  is  a  shoe  manufacturer.  He  employs  we  shall  say 
one  hundred  hands.  He  will  not  manufacture  unless  he 
either  has  orders,  or  expects  orders.  Suppose  he  has  re- 
ceived orders  for  ten  thousand  pairs  of  shoes,  or  that  he 
expects  orders  for  that  amount.  He  has  one  hundred  men 
working.  Suppose  that  each  man,  on  an  average,  produces 
one  pair  of  shoes  a  day.  That  would  mean  that  it  would 
take  one  hundred  days  to  fill  that  order.  What  does  capi- 
talism do  for  the  individuality,  or  individualism,  of  these 
men?  Does  it  encourage  them  to  develop  the  best  that 
is  in  them  so  as  to  produce  swifter,  and  swifter,  in  order 
to  accomplish  what  is  desired  with  least  waste  of  time?  ] 
No,  Capitalism  does  the  opposite.  Suppose  these  one  > 
hundred  men,  who,  on  the  average,  produce  one  pair  of 
ehoes  a  day,  and,  therefore,  have  one  hundred  days  of 
work  before  them — suppose  they  put  on  steam  and  were  to 
produce  two  pairs  of  shoes  a  day  on  the  average.  That 
would  mean  that  within  fifty  days  they  would  be  out  of  j 
work.  If  they  put  on  still  more  steam  and  produce  four 
pairs  of  shoes  a  day  on  the  average,  it  would  mean  that 
within  twenty-five  days  they  would  be  out  of  work.  If 
itill  they  put  on  more  steam,  it  means  that  all  the  sooner 
they  will  be  without  bread.  That  is  what  the  capitalist 
evstem  does  for  the  individuality  of  these  men.  I  hope  our 
friend,  Mr.  Carmody,  will  explain  how  the  individuality 
of  these  working  men  is  promoted  under  a  social  system 
that  whips  them  with  a  whip  of  hunger.  In  what  way 
could  those  men  be  expected  to  develop  the  best  that  is  in 
them  under  such  a  system?  What  the  capitalist  system 
does  is  to  compel  them  to  lag  in  their  work  as  inuch  a9 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  11 
possible,  so  as  not  only  not  to  shorten  the  period  within 
which  they  will  be  out  of  work,  but  so  as  to  lengthen  the 
period  in  which  they  will  have  a  chance  to  earn  a  living.  J 
That  is  what  the  capitalist  system  does  for  individualism'^ 
with  the  mass  of  the  workers.  j 

Take  an  illustration  from  the  other  extreme  end  of  the^ 
Bocial  scale.   Look  at  a  large  corporation.   We  know  that 
great  efforts  are  heing  put  forth  by  large  corporations  to. 
make  it  appear,  statistically,  that  a  large  number  of  stock-,' 
holders  participate  in  these  concerns.    The  New  Yorkj 
Central  claims  that  it  is  now  owned  by  something  like; 
twenty  thousand  stockholders.   See!   Why,  they  have  in-| 
creased  the  number  of  people  that  have — ^what?  Have, 
Bomething  to  say  in  the  corporation  ?  Not  at  all.  Twenty  * 
men  in  that,  and  similarly  with  all  corporations,  can  out-^ 
vote  the  others.    Stockholding  of  that  sort  is  a  delusion.! 
Those  men  who  constitute  the  large  number  of  stock- j 
holders  have  not  got  one-hundredth  part  of  the  stock  that; 
is  held  by  the  leading  corporators.    Where  does  the  in-; 
dividuality  of  this  large  majority  of  stockholders  come  in?; 
Can  they  hold  up  the  minority?  Not  unless  the  minority) 
tries  to  be  too  "clever^^  and  runs  foul  of  the  criminal  code.  ^ 
But  if  they  can  steer  just  this  side  of  the  criminal  code, 
no  court  will  recognize  the  majority  of  the  stockholders, 
because  the  majority  of  the  stockholders  don't  count,  and 
the  minority  can  do  as  it  pleases.   It  is  not  human  beings 
that  count;  it  is  stock;  it  is  money!  it  is  property — ^not 
human  individualism.  ^ 

I  shall  sum  up  these  two  illustrations  with  a  third,  to 
ehow  you  how  individualism  is  the  last  word  that  should  be 
in  the  mouth  of  a  Eepublican  or  a  Democratic  upholder 
of  capitalism.   Go  to  Eepublican  meetings;  go  to  Demo^ 


12  DE  LEON'-CARMODY  DEBATE, 

cratic  meetings;  read  Eepublican  papers;  read  Democratic 
papers;  read  them  of  all  colors  and  all  shades;  whether 
gold  or  sixteen  to  one  standardists ;  whether  free  trade  or 
protectionists;  whether  for  revision  upward  or  downward; 
get  all  the  shades  and  varieties  of  them^  and  you  will  find 
that  upon  one  thing  they  are  all  agreed.  What  is  that 
thing?  (Applause.) 

Let  me  go  back  a  moment.  Remember  the  interroga- 
tion 'mat  is  that  thing  T 

There  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  this  nation  when 
the  citizen  went  to  the  polls  as  a  man,  and  in  a  loud  voice 
proclaimed  his  political  choice.  There  was  a  time  in  the 
country^s  history  when  the  citizen^s  individuality  would 
have  spurned  any  move  to  demand  a  secret  ballot.  That 
was  the  time  in  the  nation^s  history  that  carried  individ- 
uality with  the  ballot.  Now,  what  is  that  point  upon  which 
sU  these  capitalist  elements  agree  to-day?  However  much 
they  may  disagree  in  other  respects,  they  all  agree  that, 
without  the  secret  ballot,  we  cannot  have  a  free  expression 
of  political  convictions.  Do  you  realize  what  that  means  ? 
That  is  the  point  they  have  brought  us  to  with  their  individ- 
ualism. Their  individualism  is  an  individualism  that  has 
turned  the  majority  of  our  people  into  cowards.  To-day 
when  we  go  into  a  sentinel  box,  the  door  closed  behind  us,  we 
cast  our  vote  as  though  we  were  committing  a  burglarious 
midnight  crime.  That  is  what  your  so-called  individual- 
ism has  brought  about. 

The  Socialist  says  that  the  present  condition  is  not  one 
of  individualism.  Capitalism  should  begin  by  proving 
that  individualism  has  been  promoted  by  it.  I  demand  of 
my  distinguished  opponent  to  show  us  how  individualism 
is  promoted  under  the  capitalist  system ;  and  how,  as  the 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  13 

stem  of  balloting  shows^  individualism  has  not  been  ab- 
solutely destroyed.  Socialism  says  that  individualism  can- 
not be  promoted  without  your  guaranteeing  to  every  single 
citizen  not  simply  the  ballot  but  also  the  opportunity  to 
work,  in  which  the  full  fruit  of  what  he  produces  will  be 
guaranteed  to  him.  It  is  beside  the  subject  of  the  debate 
to  prove  that  the  smashing  up  of  individuality  by  capital- 
ism has  gone  on  hand  in  hand  with  the  plunder  of  the 
working  class.  But,  whether  the  workers  were  plundered 
or  not,  we  have  this  principle  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States — Whenever  a  certain  social 
system  has  become  hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  people, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  people  to  change  it,  regardless  of  how 
that  state  of  things  came  about.  We  charge  capitalism 
with  being  the  destroyer  of  individualism. 

Having  a  few  more  minutes  time  I  want  to  give  one 
more  painful  illustration  of  this  alleged  individualism  that 
capitalism  produces,  and  why  it  produces  it.  I  wish  to 
refer  to  the  houses  of  prostitution.  Who,  here  in  Troy, 
does  not  know  that  there  are  such  houses,  where  any  man 
can  go  any  time  he  wants?  Why  is  it  the  police  do  not 
destroy  them?  Why  is  it  the  police  do  not  uproot  them? 
Is  it  graft  simply?  Those  houses  of  prostitution  are  pil- 
lars of  the  present  social  system.  Are  they  symbols  of  in- 
dividuality ? 

You  have  heard  the  song,  the  beautiful  song  sung  on  this 
platform  to-day.  Here  we  have  a  beautiful  contradiction 
of  capitalism.  ^^Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they 
toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin,  and  yet  Solomon  in  all  his 
glory  was  not  arrayed  as  one  of  them.^^  And  right  on  this 
platform  you  are  about  to  hear  the  gospel  of  Capitalist 
'Individualism,^^ — do  others  or  you  will  be  done  by  them. 


14  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

In  my  closing  minute  I  want  to  give  you  still  another 
illustration  of  this  contradiction  of  capitalist  preaching 
and  practice.  Look  at  the  biggest  capitalists  in  the  coun- 
try. They  tell  you  that  ^^roughing  it^^  makes  individualism, 
and  individuality.  And  yet  they  will  write  their  last  will 
and  testament  in  such  a  way  that  their  wealth  is  left  to 
their  dearest  relatives.  What  for?  If  individualism  is 
developed  by  '^roughing  It/^  they  should  withhold  that 
cash  from  those  who  are  dear  to  them.  Their  last  act  on 
earth  gives  a  denial  to  their  theory  regarding  individualism 
being  developed  by  ^^roughing  it.''  (Applause.) 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


15 

c 


FIRST  PEESENTATION. 
MR.  THOMAS  F.  CARMODY. 
Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

It  is  indeed  a  great  pleasure  to  be  permitted  to  take 
part  in  a  discussion  that  involves  questions  of  such  great 
public  interest  before  an  audience  of  this  character.  It  is 
a  great  pleasure  to  have  an  adversary  in  that  discussion  a 
recognized  champion  of  the  doctrines  that  he  espouses.  It 
is  a  pleasure  to  have  an  audience  that  seems  friendly 
towards  the  speaker.  As  an  audience  that  needs  to  have  the 
question  of  Socialism  as  against  Individualism  presented 
fairly  and  fully,  it  in  some  measure  at  least  applauds  the 
doctrines  of  Socialism.  You  have  followed  the  discus- 
sion of  my  distinguished  ad*versary  with  sufficient  interest 
to  know  that  it  has  consisted  entirely,  as  Socialism  does 
consist,  not  in  some  remedies,  but  in  attacks,  not  in  pro- 
viding remedies  for  evils  but  in  an  inventory  of  the  evils, 
most  of  which  are  natural  to  human  institutions,  and  to 
human  nature.  Whether  the  doctrines  I  stand  for  are 
properly  defined  in  the  term  Individualism  or  not,  I  want 
you  to  clearly  understand  that  it  does  mean  that  I  oppose, 
the  party  that  I  stand  for  opposes,  and  all  parties  oppose 
(that  deserve  the  name  of  party)  the  attack  upon  the 
institutions  upon  which  all  parties  build  their  power  and 
upon  which  individual  liberty  and  opportunity  must  rest. 
(Applause.) 

I  do  not  intend  to  let  this  debate  take  the  current  that 
my  distinguished  adversary  has  marked  out  for  it.  I  do 
not  intend  this  contest  to  rest  upon  an  inventory  of  the 


16  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE, 

evils  that  exist  in  our  political  government,  and  I  do  not 
intend  by  any  specific  analysis  of  particular  evils  to  allow 
the  great  principle  that  is  at  stake  in  this  discussion,  and 
is  involved  in  the  contest  which  it  invokes,  and  will  be 
one  of  the  elements  to  be  determined  in  the  forthcoming 
presidential  contest,  in  any  extent  whatever;  obscured  or 
clouded  by  specific  references  to  matters  that  do  not  neces- 
earily  involve  the  merits  of  party  doctrines.  My  distin- 
guished adversary  has  stated  with  much  eloquence  that  the 
trouble  is  that  individualism  has  been  destroyed,  and  he 
thereby  has  made  one  of  the  best  arguments  against  Social- 
ism that  could  possibly  be  presented.  More  than  half  of 
his  argument  was  devoted  to  pointing  out  the  great  indus- 
trial army  of  the  present  time,  wherein  individual  merit 
has  been  destroyed,  individual  industry  has  been  pre- 
vented, and  the  men  and  women  have  become  part  of  a 
great  machine  in  which  opportunity  has  sunk  to  a  dead 
level  of  mechanical  organization.  What  then  (turning  to 
Mr.  Delicon),  tell  this  audience  when  you  face  them  again, 
will  become  under  a  form  of  government  of  which  there 
is  no  opportunity  by  law  for  individual  merit  or  individual 
industry  ? 

He  has  named  every  candidate  for  president  now  before 
the  people,  and  has  pointed  out  that  these  men  concede 
that  there  are  evils  to  be  corrected,  and  if  the  time  ever 
comes  when  we  do  not  concede  that  there  are  evils  to  be 
corrected,  and  when  we  do  not  advocate  something  for  their 
correction,  then  safety,  progress  and  opportunity  in  this 
country  are  gone.  The  beauty  and  grandeur  of  American 
institutions  is  that,  when  we  find  evils,  when  the  people 
understand  there  are  evils,  they  find  that  they  can  be 
eliminated  by  the  ballot. 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  17 

I  find  in  this  audience  many  undoubtedly  who  are 
laboring  men^  and  who  believe  in  the  propaganda  that  has 
been  preached  before  you  here  this  afternoon^  that  with  the 
inequalities,  the  lack  of  opportunities  possibly,  probably 
actual^  that  you  suffer,  that  there  is  something  wrong  with 
the  form  of  government  under  which  they  occur.  The 
Socialist  will  never  discuss  the  remedy.  That  is  what  my 
adversary  has  got  to  discuss  before  he  leaves  this  platform. 
I  am  not  going  to  run  away  by  telling  you  that  things 
are  bad  and  that  a  tyrannical  industrialism  controls  in  our 
business  life.  You  might  as  well  go  out  on  the  streets  of 
Troy  and  give  vent  to  your  anger  because  the  weather  does 
not  suit  you,  because  it  is  too  cold  in  winter,  raining  on 
Sunday. 

There  are  things  that  belong  to  this  world  of  sin  and 
trouble.  Socialism  has  pointed  them  out.  It  takes  their 
symptoms  worse  than  any  other  class  of  people.  I  do  not 
believe  that  Socialism  is  very  dangerous;  it  does  not  stay 
long  in  any  one  pjace;  I  introduce  in  evidence  Milwaukee 
and  Schenectady. 

I  believe  that  the  industrial  conditions  need  a  remedy, 
I  believe  that  our  industrial  laws  need  revising,  or  en- 
forcing. I  am  opposed  to  any  industrial  system,  and  so 
are  a  majority  of  the  American  people  who  are  not  So- 
cialists, to  any  industrial  belief,  that  gives  an  opportunity 
to  some  men  to  get  more  than  they  earn  and  other  men  to 
earn  more  than  they  get.  That  industrial  system  that  com- 
pels the  poor  man  to  send  his  daughters  and  sons  into 
factories  in  order  to  drive  away  starvation;  that  does 
not  permit  that  they  go  to  school  and  acquire  educations 
and  become  as  they  should  be,  educated;  are  elements  to 
be  reckoned  with  in  this  civilization. 


18  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

I  oppose  any  influence  that  undertakes  to  tear  up  the 
courts.  I  oppose  all  of  the  evils  that  he  has  pointed  out. 
I  will  not  be  put  in  a  position,  nor  will  I  allow  the  cause  I 
speak  for  to  be  placed  in  a  position  of  hostility  to  labor. 
The  proudest  boast  of  every  party  in  this  State  and  in 
every  State  is  that  the  interests  of  labor  are  the  dearest  of 
all  interests  to  the  political  parties  in  this  country.  To 
undertake  to  place  the  cause  of  individualism  or  to  place 
the  great  parties  of  this  country  against  the  interests  of 
labor  is  not  true.    The  effort  will  miscarry. 

Take  this  State,  for  instance.  Get  down  to  specific  things. 
This  State  has  upon  its  statute  books  a  law  that  provides 
that  in  all  public  contracts  in  the  State  or  municipalities, 
there  must  be  a  clause  inserted  providing  for  eight  hours 
a  day  for  labor.  I  made  this  statement  before  an  audience 
of  Socialists  not  long  since.  A  few  days  afterward  I  re- 
ceived letters  saying  it  was  not  true,  and  it  is  a  fact  that 
Socialists  deny,  that  the  State  has  been  legislating  in  their 
interests^  but  it  is  a  fact  that  the  laboi*  interests  of  this 
State  have  received  from  the  Legislature  that  protection 
which  they  are  entitled  to ;  and  a  fifty-four  hour  law  was 
passed  this  last  session  extending  to  other  places  where 
this  law  does  not  extend.  In  addition  the  State  has  a 
factory  inspection  bureau  to  inspect  factories  and  see  that 
laws  are  enforced,  that  only  those  arriving  at  the  proper 
age  are  employed,  and  that  there  is  proper  protection  for 
the  life,  limb  and  health  of  those  who  are  employed. 
You  have  a  labor  bureau,  at  the  head  of  which  is  a  com- 
missioner of  labor  who  is  a  union  laborer.  He  has  at  his 
control  an  army  of  inspectors  who  go  throughout  the 
State  to  see  that  labor  laws  are  enforced.  Yet  you  are  told 


DE  LEDN-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


1^ 


that  the  parties  in  this  State  and  elsewhere  were  in  a  con- 
spiracy against  labor. 

Now,  I  want  to  get  to  something  which  is  of  greater 
importance.  I  want  to  establish  as  propositions  right  here, 
that  any  party  that  stands  against  labor  does  not  deserve 
to  live.  (Applause.)  I  will  say,  furthermore,  that  any 
party  that  does  will  not  live.  (Louder  applause.)  And 
I  will  give  you  a  third  proposition — applaud  this — that 
any  party  that  undertakes  to  fool  labor  by  remedies  other 
than  sound  does  not  deserve  to  live.  (Still  louder  applause 
in  which  Mr.  DeLeon  joins.) 

I  want  to  give  my  adversary  a  little  something  to  do.  What 
has  Socialism  got  to  say  about  this  ?  What  are  its  remedies  ? 
They  have  pointed  out  the  evils.  It  will  not  do  very  much 
good  for  a  doctor  to  come  around  to  your  house  and  tell 
you  how  sick  you  are  unless  he  can  give  you  some  medi- 
cine to  cure.  I  have  their  national  platform  here  and 
call  your  attention  to  one  plank  which  is  the  basis  of  Social- 
ism. The  collective  ownership  of  railroads,  telegraph, 
telephones,  steamship  lines  and  all  other  means  of  social 
transportation  and  communication.  They  say  there  can 
be  no  private  title ;  that  whether  called  fee  simple  or  other- 
wise, must  be  subordinated  to  the  public  title.  First  is 
collective  ownership.  That  is  the  basic  principle  of  So- 
cialism. Without  that  remedy  Socialism  has  no  remedy. 
If  that  be  not  a  remedy,  Socialism  has  no  cause.  Surely, 
if  it  can  not  make  practical  this  fundamental  doctrine  of 
its  creed,  then  it  must  cease  to  appeal  to  you^  or  to  any 
other  portion  of  our  people  for  its  support,  unless  they 
find  there  an  answer  to  the  evils  that  they  have  diagnosed 
as  part  of  the  ills  of  the  body  politic,  then  they  have  no 
remedy  and  I  am  going  to  ask  my  adversary  to  tell  what 


20  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

has  never  yet  been  told  to  an  American  audience  in  public 

that  I  have  ever  understood  or  heard  or  read. 

In  the  first  place  how  are  they  going  to  bring  it  about? 
You  have  got  railroads,  telegraphs,  telephones,  and  canals. 
How  are  you  going  to  get  them?  They  are  owned  by 
private  individuals,  they  are  operated  by  private  individuals 
as  private  property.  How  are  they  going  to  be  acquired 
by  Socialism?  Are  you  going  to  buy  them  out?  This 
is  politics.  This  shows  whether  you  get  anywhere  or  not, 
with  Socialism.  Where  are  you  going  to  get  the  money  to 
buy  them?  Suppose  you  have  got  the  money  and  sup- 
pose you  buy  them  and  pay  men  for  their  property,  then  you 
start  in  with  a  lot  of  millionaires.  I  am  going  to  deal 
with  your  proposition  as  you  have  defined  it  in  the  first 
place.  You  believe  in  collective  ownership.  Then  you 
have  got  to  extinguish  private  ownership.  You  have  got 
two  ways  to  do  it;  you  have  to  pay  money  for  it,  or  you 
have  got  to  confiscate  it.  If  you  pay  for  it  you  start  in 
with  a  lot  of  millionaires.  If  you  confiscate  it  where  is 
your  Socialism?  (Applause.) 

I  put  this  question  to  Socialists,  and  never  got  any 
answer  except  confiscation,  which  means  anarchy.  If  that 
be  the  theory  of  Socialism,  and  that  is  the  only  one  that 
solves  the  situation^  then  you  have  instead  of  a  solvent  of 
human  misery,  the  most  tyrannical,  powerful  and  deadly 
attack  on  human  liberty  that  was  ever  delivered  from  any 
source  since  God  said,  ^Tjet  there  be  light.'^  You  must 
have  some  way  of  making  political  this  doctrine  of  public 
ownership. 

The  present  idea,  the  idea  of  individualism,  is  that  the 
business  corporations  must  be  made  amenable  to  the  law. 
Nobody  believes  that  they  should  tyrannize  property  rights. 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


21 


liberty  or  interests;  that  you  have  the  power  and  disposi- 
tion if  you  will  with  your  ballot  to  rectify  and  correct. 
(Applause.)  I  will  not  permit  any  man  to  say  before  my 
audience  that  the  parties  of  this  country  are  standing  upon 
the  prostrate  body  of  the  laborer  or  citizen.  I  will  not 
allow  any  one  to  say,  here  or  anywhere,  that  this  country 
is  drifting  or  ever  will  drift  over  the  common  humanity 
that  is  its  pride  or  its  glory.  Individualism  gives  to  your 
man  in  the  shoe  factory,  it  gives  to  your  man  on  the  farm, 
it  gives  to  your  man  anywhere,  opportunity  if  he  has  more 
brains  or  industry  than  any  one  else  has.  It  gives  him 
the  opportunity  to  work  it  out.  It  has  been  the  glory 
of  this  country  that  its  opportunities  have  made  it  what 
it  is  and  what  our  forefathers  when  they  outlined  the  form 
of  government  which  is  ours  to-day,  and  thank  God  will 
always  be  ours  for  we  are  grown  patriotic  enough  to  de- 
fend it  whenever  attacked.  It  was  based  on  the  theory 
that  all  men  should  have  equal  opportunities  to  earn  what 
they  could  and  to  have  what  they  earned.  If  that  does  not 
obtain  to-day,  then  you  have  the  power  to  go  to  the  polls 
and  punish  the  party  that  does  not  permit  it.  But  you  have 
not  a  remedy  in  anything  that  Socialism  provides.  I 
want,  during  the  remainder  of  this  discussion  for  my  ad- 
versary, instead  of  pointing  out  those  things  upon  which 
we  agree,  I  want  him  to  give  you  the  remedies  which  So- 
cialism has.  He  has  mentioned  presidential  candidates, 
all  of  whom  have  pointed  out  evils  he  has  dwelt  upon. 
There  are  many  more,  but  none  of  those  candidates  for 
president  have  advocated  the  theories  he  advocates.  Every 
one  of  them,  Taft,  Roosevelt,  Wilson,  Clark,  every  one  of 
them  is  against  Socialism.  While  they  see  the  evils,  as 
you  see  them,  they  see  still  that  there  are  remedies  under 


22  DE  LEON-CARMODy  DEBATE. 

our  laws  and  forms  of  government  for  these  evils.  (Bell 
rings^  one  minute  before  closing.)  This  discussion  will 
be  of  no  importance  whatever  unless  we  are  able  to  have 
the  practical  politics  of  your  theories  and  mine  discussed 
before  this  audience.  I  still  insist  as  I  sit  down  for  the 
first  heat  that  when  my  adversary  take  the  stand  next  time 
that  he  will  tell  you  how  the  evils  he  has  pointed  out  are 
to  be  met  by  the  remedies  which  Socialism  proposes.  (Ap- 
plause.) 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


2a 


DANIEL  DE  LEON  IN  EEBUTTAL. 

If  a  traveler  from  Mars  had  landed  here  when  my  dis- 
tinguished adversary  was  speaking  he  would  have  been 
justified  in  concluding  that  the  debate  was  not  on  individ- 
ualism. Yet  that  was  the  subject  for  debate.  That  was 
The  subject  given  to  go  by,  and  I  mean  no  insult — but  a 
stump  oration  was  delivered  instead.  That  sort  of  rea- 
soning will  have  to  be  given  up  by  the  old  parties  if  they 
are  to  keep  the  ear  of  the  people.  Anybody  who  knows 
anything  knows  that  the  subject  of  Socialism  is  a  broad 
subject.  I  would  not  have  accepted  a  debate  on  ^^Capitalism 
vs.  Socialism.^^  I  would  have  accepted  only  some  sub- 
division of  it,  because  in  a  few  minutes  you  can  only  skim 
the  surface  if  you  are  going  to  take  the  broad  subject  of 
Capitalism  or  Socialism.  The  subject  for  debate  was  that 
one  feature,  Individualism,  that  issues  out  of  the  conflict 
of  Capitalism  vs.  Socialism^. 

My  distinguished  adversary  is  a  lawyer,  and  so  am  I. 
He  and  those  of  you  who  are  lawyers  will  understand  me 
when  I  say  that  he  made  a  plea  of  confession  and  avoid- 
ance. I  have  shown  with  the  illustrations  that  I  furnishefl 
that  Capitalism  has  made  a  mess  of  individualism.  How 
did  my  distinguished  adversary  meet  the  charge  ?  He  ad- 
mitted the  correctness  of  the  picture  that  I  drew,  and  then 
he  charged  me  with  not  providing  remedies — as  though 
lemedies  were  the  subject  of  debate — and  then  he  declared 
the  inventory  of  the  evils  that  I  drew  up  to  be  '^inherent  in 
things'^ — I  suppose  as  inherent  as  the  weather.  That's  the 
pagan's  view  of  things. 


24  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

The  pagan  looked  upon  disease  as  something  that  could 
not  be  overcome.  He  took  the  posture  that  the  adversi- 
ties which  befell  him  were  unavoidable^  and  he  bowed  down 
before  them.  We  say  they  are  not  unavoidable.  Even 
against  the  weather — why,  every  man  and  woman  protects 
himself  and  herself  against  the  weather.  We  have  light- 
ning rods;  and  we  also  have  pagans  to-day  who  think  it 
is  against  ^^the  will  of  God^^  to  see  to  it  that  lightning  does 
not  strike  our  steeples.  The  pagan  would  consider  the 
hurricane  a  breath  of  God.  We  deny  it.  We  say  that  it 
is  not  a  breath  of  God;  it  is  a  disturbance  in  nature  and 
we  protect  ourselves  against  it;  and  we  see  to  it  that  it  does 
not  create  more  disturbance  than  we  can  help.  So  with 
these  social  ills.  They  are  not  inherent  in  things.  The 
plea  of  confession  and  avoidance  was  to  admit  all  that  I 
said  with  regard  to  the  crushing  out  of  the  individual- 
ism of  the  people,  and  then  to  say:  "It  can  not  be  helped, 
you  are  Utopians,  you  are  trying  to  change  the  Sun  and  the 
'Moon.^^    (Laughter. ) 

He  asserts  that  these  evils  are  inherent  in  human  na- 
ture. This  "human  nature'^  has  also  got  to  be  defined, 
What  is  human  nature?  Contemplate  a  young  lady  who 
has  a  flea  on  her  cheek — ^if  the  press,  the  politicians  and 
pulpiteers,  tell  her  that  that  is  a  beauty  spot,  her  human 
nature  will  cause  her  to  protect  that  flea.  Her  ignor- 
ance of  the  facts  is  superinduced  by  the  leaders  of  public 
information.  Let  some  one  impart  to  that  girl  the  knowl- 
edge that  the  flea  is  not  a  beauty  spot ;  that  it  is  a  parasite 
which  sucks  her  blood,  and  will  put  a  hole  in  that  spot, 
and  spoil  her  complexion;  then  that  same  human  nature 
that  at  first  caused  her  to  protect  that  flea  will  now  cause 
her  to  take  it  between  two  nails  and  kill  it.  Human  nature 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  25 

is  just  what  we  bank  upon.  But  we  claim  that  human 
nature  is  to-day  misinformed  and  misdirected. 

What  will  become  of  government  under  Socialism,  which 
^Tbears  man  under  the  dead  weight  of  Socialism  and 
Anarchy/^  according  to  my  distinguished  adversary  ?  That 
is  a  further  plea  of  confession  and  avoidance.  But  since 
my  adversary  has  abandoned  the  field,  I  am  willing  to 
follow  him  up  and  throw  a  few  hand  grenades  into  the  re- 
treating and  routed  foe. 

I  regret  such  a  distinguished  official  of  this  Empire 
State  should  have  committed  the  error  of  identifying  So- 
cialism with  Anarchy.  Eight  here^  let  me  say  that  no- 
body more  so  than  the  Socialist  reverences  the  history  of 
this  country,  and  recognizes  the  work  done  in  the  Kevolu- 
tion.  We  are  not  Anarchists,  and  can  look  to  the  past 
more  proudly  than  many  of  those  in  these  United  States 
who  to-day  wave  the  Eed,  White  and  Blue.  I  regret  that 
the  term  was  used,  and  that  is  putting  it  very  mildly. 

Where  will  human  nature  be,  where  will  man  be  when 
weighed  down  by  Socialism  ?  I  wish  to  remind  my  learned 
friend  of  the  language  held  by  the  Tories  against  the 
Revolutionary  Fathers  when  this  country  was  fighting  for 
its  freedom.  You  will  find  that  their  language  against 
the  Jeffersons  of  those  days  was  the  identical  language  of 
Attorney  General  Carmody  to-day.  (Applause.)  What  will 
become  of  this  country,  the  Tories  asked,  when  it  is  buried 
under  the  dead  and  levelling  weight  of  Eepublicanism  ? 
And  those  Tories  were  wiped  out  at  Yorktown  and  else- 
where, and  the  Eepublic  did  arise.  There  is  no  differenco 
in  the  nature  of  the  attacks  against  the  obtainers  of  our 
bourgeois  freedoms  and  the  attacks  used  against  Socialism 
to-day.   There  will  be  no  such  thing  as  ^^a  dead  weight,'^ 


26  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE, 

for  the  simple  reason  that  under  Socialism  man  will 
have  the  free  choice  of  work,  which  he  has  not  to-day, 
and  he  will  enjoy  all  that  he  produces.  But  that  takes 
us  into  the  social  economic  question  for  which  I  have  not 
now  the  time. 

My  distinguished  adversary  says  that  he  cannot  get  an 
answer  from  any  Socialist,  and  he  hoped  I  would  answer 
him.  I  am  going  to  be  more  courteous  to  him  than  he  was 
to  me.  He  did  not  answer  a  single  one  of  my  questions. 
There  is  a  story  told  of  Andrew  Jackson,  who,  one  day, 
when  President,  and  standing  with  his  back  before  the 
fire-place  in  the  White  House,  heard  a  noise  outside,  and* 
immediately  the  door  of  the  room  fl.ew  open,  and  an  old 
acquaintance  of  Tennessee  rushed  in.  ^^What  are  you  doing 
in  Washington  asked  Jackson.  ^^Do  you  know.  Gen- 
eral, what  is  going  on  in  Tennessee  ^^No.^^  ^They  are 
charging  me  with  being  a  horse  thief.^^  ^Tan  they  prove 
it  ?^  J ackson  asked.  The  answer  was :  ^^That  is  the  worst 
of  it,  they  have  proved  itP^  That  is  the  worst  of  the  fix 
of  our  adversaries.    The  Socialist  charges  are  proved, 

I  am  asked  ^^How  are  you  going  to  cure  the  situation?'' 
*^What  are  you  going  to  do?'^  ^^Are  you  going  to  confis- 
cated 

I  want  my  distinguished  adversary  to  refresh  his  mind 
upon  the  juridic  meaning  of  the  word  ^"^confiscation.'* 
Confiscation  means  the  appropriation  of  property  contrary 
to  the  laws  of  an  existing  social  system.  Eevolutions,  how- 
ever, bring  their  own  laws  with  them.  Consequently,  un- 
der the  laws  of  a  Social  Eevolution,  that  may  be  done  legit- 
imately, without  the  brand  of  ^^confiscation"  which,  under 
the  laws  of  the  social  system  that  the  Revolution  has  sup- 
planted, would  be  called  confiscation.   We  have  a  striking 


DE  LEON-OARMODY  DEBATE.  2T 

illustration  of  this  fact  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  early 
leaders  of  our  country  whom  I  hope  Mr.  Carmody  will  not 
repudiate.  When  the  Eevolutionary  Fathers  were  asked: 
^^Are  you  going  to  confiscate  these  colonies  it  was  no 
less  a  man  than  J efferson  who  answered  the  ^^confiscatory" 
charge:  Whenever  in  the  history  of  a  people  conditions 
have  become  such  that  they  have  to  be  changed,  changed 
they  shall  be.  ^^Confiscation/^  from  the  British  viewpoint, 
was  at  the  root  of  this  Eepublic.  Like  all  Eevolutionary 
governments,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  was 
born  in  revolution.  It  did  not  ^^confiscate'^  under  the  laws 
of  its  own  existence,  whatever  the  name  given  to  the  act 
by  the  social  system  and  government  which  it  overthrew. 
The  question  is,  ^^Do  the  requirements  of  the  working 
class  demand  a  different  state  of  society?"  If  the  answer 
is  ^^Yes,"  then  that  appropriation  is  not  confiscation  at  all. 
I  hope  my  distinguished  adversary  heard,  and  will  remem- 
ber my  answer.  The  breath  that  denounces  us  as  ^^confis- 
cators,"  curiously  enough,  brands  Thomas  Jefferson,  on 
this  platform,  by  a  Democrat,  as  a  ^^confiscator." 

The  words  were  put  in  my  mouth  that  I  claim  that  the 
old  parties  are  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  against  the  work- 
ing class.  I  certainly  hold  no  such  view,  and  expressed 
none.  The  class  interests — ^the  capitalistic  class  interests — 
direct  the  conduct  of  the  old  parties;  and  that  conduct  is 
upheld  by  the  present  capitalist  system.  That  is  not  con- 
spiracy, any  more  than  it  is  conspiracy  for  centipedes  to 
bite.  It  is  the  nature  of  the  beast.  It  has  to  do  it.  The 
capitalist  class  could  not  do  otherwise.  It  is  the  law  of 
its  existence.  Being  the  law  of  its  existence,  none  but  an 
Anarchist  would  say  that  the  old  parties  are  in  a  conspir- 
acy. They  are  in  conspiracies,  but  not  against  the  working 


28 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


class.  They  are  in  conspiracies  against  one  another;  one 
conspires  against  the  others,  and  all  against  each;  and 
within  the  same  party  there  are  a  lot  of  conspiratora 
against  one  another. 

There  are  various  brands  of  Socialists  we  are  told.  Oh, 
yes.  It  is  a  curious  remark  to  be  made^  on  Sunday,  of  all 
days.  When  you  say  that  there  are  in  existence  several 
shades  of  Socialism,  so  that  you  cannot  tell  what  Socialism 
means^  then^  by  that  same  token,  you  declare  that  there 
is  no  Christianity,  because  there  are  at  least  two  hundred 
end  fifty  varieties  of  Christianity. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  claim  about  there  being  so  manj 
varieties  of  Socialists,  least  of  all  is  there  any  comfort  in 
it  for  capitalism.  I  recommend  to  my  distinguished  ad- 
versary that  he  refresh  his  memory  on  the  work  of  Jane 
Grey  Swissholm,  the  zealous  Abolitionist  woman.  She 
despaired  at  the  sight  of  so  many  varieties  of  Abolition- 
ists ;  but,  even  when  her  despair  was  at  its  height,  that  hap-^ 
pened  that  brought  the  Abolitionists  all  together,  with  the 
consequence  that  the  Copper-head  and  Bourbon  slavehold- 
ing  Democracy  came  to  grief  at  Appomattox.  It  is  the  law 
of  revolutions  that  their  component  elements  disintegrate; 
each  then  attracts  its  own  special  affinities ;  until  that  hap- 
pens that  brings  them  all  together  into  one  mighty,  irre- 
sistible stream.  There  lies  at  the  other  end  of  this  evolu- 
tionary chain  of  our  own  generation,  another  Appomattox — 
this  time  it  is  in  store  for  Capitalism.  To  use  a  favorite 
expression  of  Lincoln — the  more  black  cats  fight,  all  the 
more  numerous  will  be  the  black  kittens. 

We  were  told  by  Mr.  Carmody  that  the  Democratic  party 
loves  labor.  What  do  you  mean  by  love  of  labor  ?  Do  you 
piean  to  give  labor  its  independence?    Surely  not.  Then 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


29 


you  don^t  love  labor.  What  is  the  use  in  saying  that  every 
man  shall  have  an  equal  chance,  when  capitalism  is  so 
constructed  that  every  one  hasn^t  an  equal  chance?  When 
they  tell  us  they  love  labor,  and  I  believe  most  of  them  are 
sincere,  they  love  labor  in  the  same  sense  that  human  beinga 
love  their  cattle.  They  are  willing  to  do  anything  for 
labor  except  get  off  the  back  of  labor. 

We  were  told  that  no  party  can  live  that  is  against  labor 
and  we  applauded  that.  Capitalist  parties,  Democratic  and 
Eepublican,  while  they  are  for  labor  in  the  sense  that  I 
showed  you,  they  are  against  labor,  because  they  propose 
to  keep  labor  in  wage  slavery.  No  such  party  can  any  more 
last  in  the  United  States.  It  is  true  that  they  will  elect 
their  candidates,  but  not  for  much  longer. 

We  are  told  that  Socialism  could  never  be.  If  Socialism 
can  never  be,  why  these  terrific  onslaughts  on  it  from  the 
pulpit  and  the  press?  If  Socialism  is  an  absurdity,  why 
not  let  the  absurdity  kill  itself?  A  party  which  does  not 
intelligently  stand  for  labor,  and  that  means  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  working  class,  that  party  is  doomed  in  the 
United  States,  and  the  day  of  its  doom  is  in  sight. 


30 


DE  LEON-CAKMODY  DEBATE. 


MB.  THOMAS  F.  CAEMODY  IN  REBUTTAL. 

I  don^t  claim  to  be  a  prophet,  but  I  can  tell  just  what 
a  Socialist  is  going  to  do  when  he  goes  to  his  remedy. 
Just  what  the  speaker  has  done.  Just  what  all  advocates 
of  Socialism  always  do.  They  have  but  a  very  few  words 
to  devote  to  an  explanation  of  the  remedies,  while  they  have 
a  most  beautiful  vocabulary  with  which  to  describe  the  ills. 

I  told  you  that  my  distinguished  adversary  would  not 
tell  you  how  they  were  going  to  carry  into  effect  the  most 
important  declaration  of  Socialism,  viz :  the  acquisition  of 
public  utilities.  He  sat  down  without  telling  you,  except 
to  vaguely  intimate  that  in  this  social  revolution  which 
he  anticipates,  a  means  will  be  found  such  as  we  found  in 
the  Eebellion  when  the  slaves  were  freed,  such  as  we  found 
in  the  Eevolution  when  the  colonies  struck  down  the  hand 
of  foreign  tyranny  and  erected  a  government  of  independ- 
ence. While  the  charge  that  I  made  is  denied  that,  carried 
to  iii  logical  conclusion,  it  meant  Anarchy,  he  has  admitted 
that  Socialism  means  Anarchy  when  it  means  confiscation 
of  property  rights.  Before  I  discuss  that,  I  am  going  to 
clear  up  some  of  the  confusion  in  which  he  undertook  to 
involve  the  statements  that  I  made  in  my  preliminary  re- 
marks. 

I  did  not  say,  and  do  not  intend  to  say  that  there  are 
evils  in  our  political  system  that  may  not  be  corrected.  I 
did  say,  if  there  be  any  question  about  my  meaning,  that 
Buch  evils  as  there  are,  and  he  has  pointed  out  many  fully 
as  well  as  I  can;  and  I  go  the  whole  length  in  pointing 
out  some,  the  remedy  for  which  lies  with  the  people  in 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


31 


an  intelligent  application  of  the  power  of  the  ballot.  (Ap- 
plause.) Turbulent  destruction  of  property  rights  has  been 
preached  from  this  platform  this  afternoon,  although  in 
covert  language. 

He  says  when  I  pointed  out  to  you  that  there  are  evils 
that  exist  in  our  public  life  and  used  the  similitude  of 
the  conditions  of  the  weather,  he  gave  you  the  facetious  ex- 
ample of  the  young  lady  with  the  beauty  mark  of  the  para- 
site upon  her  cheek.  We  might  just  as  well  take  that  as 
cnything  else.  What  would  Socialism  do  with  that?  The 
doctrines  which  they  apply  to  their  public  questions — ac- 
cording to  those  doctrines  they  would  cut  off  the  young 
lady's  head  and  mangle  her  corpse.  The  trouble  is  that 
their  remedies  are  worse  than  the  disease. 

He  undertook  also  to  classify  me  with  the  Tories.  Why, 
he  inadvertently  made  a  very  frank  admission  against  hia 
own  theories  of  government.  You  will  remember  that  the 
Tory  was  the  man  who  said  the  people  were  not  able  to 
govern  themselves.  It  was  the  party  of  J efferson  and  Ham- 
ilton and  Adams  who  raised  upon  the  Atlantic  shores  the 
banner  of  liberty,  and  they  placed  the  powers  of  government 
in  the  hands  of  the  people.  They  gave  them  the  right  to 
elect  their  public  servants;  they  surrounded  public  office 
with  constitutional  limitations,  and  lest  in  some  moment  of 
frenzy  the  people  might  be  led  by  the  voice  of  the  dema- 
gogue, they  placed  around  each  department  of  government 
environments  of  constitutional  strength  and  power.  They 
gave  you  a  legislative  department  to  make  the  laws;  they 
gave  you  the  power  by  the  ballot  to  elect  the  men  that 
make  the  laws;  they  gave  you  an  executive  department  to 
enforce  the  laws.  They  gave  you  the  ballot  to  elect  the 
men  that  enforce  the  laws.   If  those  who  enforce  the  laws 


32  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE, 

don^t  enforce  them  justly,  you  have  the  power  given  you 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  nation  and  of  the  State,  to  cor- 
rect every  evil  of  that  character.  Don^t  let  us  misconceive 
or  misconstrue  what  a  Diemocratic  form  of  government 
means ;  it  means  confidence  in  the  people.  If  properly  en- 
forced, and  if  proper  laws  are  passed,  and  if  when  passed 
they  are  enforced,  if  honest  men  are  placed  in  public  office, 
if  dishonest  men  are  driven  from  public  offi'ce  by  the  power 
of  the  ballot,  you  will  have  honest  laws  honestly  enforced. 
I  am  not  going  to  be  placed  in  the  position  before  this  au- 
dience or  any  other  in  defending  unjust  laws  or  entrenched 
privilege.  I  scorn  entrenched  privilege  everywhere, 
whether  it  is  seeking  to  destroy  the  duties  of  labor,  whether 
it  is  seeking  to  curb  the  currents  of  justice,  whether  it  is 
Geeking  to  destroy  the  heritage  of  labor  which  your  fathers 
gave  to  you,  I  would  destroy  it,  and  you  have  the  power  to 
destroy  it.  It  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  accomplish  this 
that  you  destroy  the  government  with  it  or  that  you  destroy 
property  rights.  (Applause.) 

Here  is  where  I  intend  to  nail  Socialism  to  the  cross  and 
keep  it  there.  I  want  somebody  to  tell  the  laborer  who  is 
working  in  the  shoe  factory,  or  whose  boys  or  girls  are 
working  for  the  purpose  of  earning  an  honest  livelihood, 
is  there  any  remedy  for  that  condition?  Where  do  you 
find  a  remedy  in  that  policy  of  Anarchy  and  confiscation, 
which  provides  that  public  utilities  shall  be  controlled  by  a 
common  ownership  and  that  you  acquire  public  utilities  by 
confiscation?  Is  there  anybody  in  this  land  that  needs 
to  repel  the  doctrine  of  confiscation,  that  needs  to  repel 
the  idea  of  invasion  of  public  rights  or  public  liberty  any 
more  than  the  poor  laborer  needs  to  repel  it?  Is  there  a 
citizen  under  the  Flag  who  needs  more  the  protection  of 


DE  LEON-CAHMODY  DEBATE. 


33 


the  principle  of  equality  before  the  law  than  the  poor 
laboring  man?  It  is  the  only  legacy  you  have;  it  is  the 
only  protection  you  have.  You  should  have  it,  and  if  you 
donH  have  it,  you  have  the  power  to  get  it  by  your  ballots, 
and  it  is  not  either  confiscation  or  Anarchy. 

I  propounded  that  question  in  the  beginning,  knowing 
that  it  would  not  be  answered.  This  debate  will  end  with* 
out  its  being  answered,  but  there  will  have  to  be  an  admis- 
sion that  it  is  not  answered,  except  the  covert  one  wliich 
was  given.   Confiscation  is  Anarchy. 

What  is  the  force  of  the  analogy  of  the  colonies  declar- 
ing their  independence  ?  They  did  not  confiscate  anything, 
they  did  not  confiscate  any  property;  they  took  what  they 
declared  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  theirs. 
(Tjoud  applause  in  which  Mr.  De  Leon  joins^and  from  many 
parts  of  the  theatre,  shouts  of  ''That's  what  the  Socialists 
will  do.'')  They  did  not  confiscate  the  railroads  or  steam- 
boats (laughter),  I  was  thinking  of  that  platform, — What 
did  they  take?  Did  they  take  anybody's  property?  Did 
they  ?  They  didn't  take  a  dollar ;  they  didn't  take  a  dollar 
of  anybody's  property ;  they  took  their  liberty  which  they 
declared  belonged  to  them.    (Applause.)  (Laughter.) 

(Continuing.)  You  are  a  little  too  rapid  in  anticipating 
my  conclusions.  There  was  not  a  dollar  of  anybody's  prop- 
erty confiscated.  Property  rights  were  held  sacred ;  the  only 
thing  they  demanded  was  that  foreign  tyranny  of  England 
be  removed  from  their  necks.  They  demanded  first,  the 
amelioration  of  their  lands;  that  unjust  tax  laws  be 
amended  or  repealed;  they  demanded  equal  opportunities 
to  all  men.  They  did  not  demand  that  there  be  confiscated 
the  public  utilities. 

We  go  now  to  the  Rebellion,  the  Instances  of  what  lin- 


34  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

ooln  did  in  striking  the  shackles  from  the  slave.  That 
was  done  as  an  instance  in  the  war  of  the  Eebellion;  it 
was  done  as  an  act  of  necessity  and  for  the  purpose  of  doing 
what  the  laws  of  this  country  said  would  be  done  from  the 
beginning — ^give  liberty  to  all.  It  was  accomplished  at  ft 
time  when  it  could  be  justified  as  a  military  necessity. 

I  ask  you  if  you  find  in  these  two  instances  a  support  for 
the  theory  of  government  in  these  days  of  opportunities — a 
Bupport  for  the  Socialist  theory  of  government — in  these 
days  when  school  houses  are  open  to  all ;  and  if  you  do  not 
get  education  you  ought  to  unite  with  those  demanding  it. 

You  say  you  are  going  to  start  this  party  of  yours  by 
confiscating  public  utilities,  by  taking  away  from  the  great 
corporations  their  vested  property  rights.  Do  you  know 
what  that  means  ?  You  are  taking  it  away  from  the  rich. 
The  stock  in  these  corporations  is  pretty  widely  scattered ; 
much  of  it  is  owned  by  small  investors.  You  take  the  Troy 
dam;  you  take  the  canals.  (Laughter.) 

I  am  rather  ashamed  to  stand  before  an  audience  on  a 
Sunday  afternoon  in  the  city  of  Troy,  a  city  of  churches, 
a  city  of  homes,  a  city  of  virtue,  a  city  of  patriotism  and 
a  city  of  intelligence,  and  have  to  apologize  for  any  eulogy 
that  I  make  of  law  and  order.  I  am  ashamed  that  I  have 
to  stand  before  an  audience  and  apologize  for  lauding  the 
institutions  of  my  country.  I  am  ashamed  that  I  may  be 
laughed  at  and  scoffed  at  by  men  who  enjoy  what  they  3o 
not  enjoy  anywhere  else,  did  not  enjoy  since  the  creation 
was  started,  and  do  not  enjoy  anywhere  else  but  here.  (Ap- 
plause.) 

If  that  time  has  come,  and  if  it  is  here,  if  we  have  got  in 
this  campaign  or  if  we  have  got  to  face  in  the  future  any 
factor  of  our  political  existence  that  stands  upon  those  doc- 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  35 

trines,  then  you  are  the  most  dangerous  factor  that  ever 
stood  beneath  the  Flag.  The  tyranny  of  life  is  nothing 
compared  with  the  tyranny  of  Anarchy.  The  tyranny  of 
entrenched  privilege  against  which  you  complain  is  ideal 
as  against  that  tyranny  that  would  level  and  destroy,  de- 
stroy the  altar  and  the  home,  destroy  equality  and  labor. 
(Laughter.)  I  will  say  when  you  laugh  at  that,  then  the 
only  safety  is  in  your  numbers.  Bear  in  mind  that  no 
party  will  grow  in  this  country  and  succeed  which  does  not 
cherish  those  doctrines  that  are  planted  in  the  heart  of 
every  man^  that  stand  for  law  and  order  and  for  the  rights 
of  others,  and  for  opportunity.  (Applause.) 

Every  man  has  got  some  chance  himself,  and  if  you  have 
not  got  it,  unite  yourselves  with  those  who  can  give  it  to 
you,  if  they  deny  it  to  you. 

Don^t  destroy  because  one  of  the  ramparts  of  justice  has 
been  stricken  down.  Don^t  give  up  the  citadel  because 
Benedict  Arnold  has  sold  out  the  cause.  Don^t  punish 
the  other  patriots  of  the  Eevolution  because  there  are  trai- 
tors. Don^t  denounce  religion  because  there  are  false 
prophets  in  the  land.  (Applause.) 

(Continuing.)  Mankind  suffers  from  ills,  but  don't  de- 
stroy its  opportunities.  I  plead  here  for  those  principles, 
and  I  plead  that  you  may  understand  them,  that  you  may 
examine  them  and  that  you  may  know  what  they  mean 
and  what  the  creed  that  you  plead  means  as  applied  to  them. 
(Applause.) 

(Mr.  Carmody  then  sits  down  with  nine  minutes  of  the 
time  allotted  to  him  unconsumed.) 


30 


DE)  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 


DANIEL  DE  LEON,  FINAL  EEBUTTAL. 

I  regret  to  see  the  insistence  of  my  distinguished  adver- 
sary upon  ^^confiseation/^  I  am  surprised  that  he,  a  Demo- 
crat, should  do  so.  He  is  thereby  repudiating  Jefferson. 
Jefferson's  answer  to  the  charge  of  ^^confiscation''  is  the 
Declaration  of  Independence — an  ample  answer. 

I  also  regret  to  notice  the  confusion  of  thought  on  the 
part  of  my  distinguished  adversary  concerning  the  liberties 
that  ^^Jeflerson  and  Hamilton  gave  to  our  people."  Does 
not  my  distinguished  adversary  know  that  what  Hamilton 
wanted  was  not  what  Jefferson  wanted  and  got;  and  does 
he  not  know  that  the  Democratic  party  has  since  thrown 
Jefferson  overboard  and  become  Hamiltonian? 

My  distinguished  adversary  says  we  are  the  worst  factors 
in  society.  We  are  not  afraid  of  such  charges.  That  was 
the  charge  that  the  patriciate  of  the  old  Eoman  Empire 
made  against  the  early  Christians;  that  was  the  charge 
that  the  Eoman  Catholic  political  hierachy  later  hurled  at 
the  Protestants;  that  was  exactly  the  charge  that  the 
Democratic  Bourbon  Copperheads  flung  at  the  Abolition- 
ists. We  Socialists  have  not  yet  been  tarred  and  feathered 
and  ridden  on  rails  as  the  Abolitionists  were.  (Voice  from 
the  audience:  ^^What  are  they  doing  in  California?")  Be 
not  too  hasty.  The  Socialist  of  America  denies  all  affinity 
with  the  element  whose  leading  song  has  for  its  refrain: 
'^Hallelujah,  Hallelujah,  I'm  a  bum!"  Mere  declamation 
is  not  enough  to  prove  that  the  Socialist  is  '^the  worst 
enemy  in  society.^' 


DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE.  37 

My  distinguished  adversary  insists  that  I  have  not  an- 
swered his  questions. 

I  maintain  that  it  is  he  that  has  abandoned  the  field. 
If  he  desires  to  debate  the  subject  of  Socialism,  I  am  ready. 
Eight  here  I  challenge  him  to  debate  on  some  specific  sub- 
ject concerning  Socialism — ^^Confiscation/^  if  he  likes,  or 
the  subject  that  ^^The  political  State,  or  Capitalism,  must 
now  make  room  for  the  Industrial  Government,  or  Social- 
ism.^^ The  question  of  Socialism  requires  a  careful  gath- 
ering of  facts,  and  close  reasoning.  Declamation  will  not 
stead. 

In  the  few  minutes  left  to  me  I  shall  rapidly  take  up  and 
dispose  of  some  of  my  distinguished  adversary's  last  points. 

My  distinguished  adversary  said  that  my  remedy  for 
that  young  lady  with  the  flea  on  her  cheek  would  be  to 
hack  off  her  head.  Indeed  not!  I  distinctly  said  she 
would  take  the  parasite  between  her  two  nails  and  nip  off 
its  life.  Nor  is  that  the  treatment  we  have  in  store  for 
the  capitalist  class.  We  would  give  them  a  chance,  for  once 
in  their  lives  to  earn  an  honest  living. 

My  distinguished  adversary  said  that  confiscation  is 
Anarchy.  I  have  already  and  amply  covered  the  subject 
of  ^^confiscation.^'  But  as  to  "Anarchy,'^  what  is  Anarchy  ? 
A  word  upon  that.  Anarchy  is  that  theory  of  society  under 
which  man  is  a  law  unto  himself.  It  is  a  theory  of  society 
that  denies  the  collectivity.  It  is  a  theory  of  society  that 
finds  vastly  more  affinity  with  the  Capitalist  class  than  it 
does  with  the  Socialist.  It  is  a  theory  of  society  that  would 
throw  mankind  back  to  the  primitive  state.  It  denies  the 
propriety  of  central  government.  He  who  speaks  of  So- 
cialist policies  as  Anarchy  should  premise  the  statement 
with  a  book  on  his  theory  of  Anarchy.    Such  a  man's 


38  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

theory  of  Anarchy  would  be  found  absolutely  at  war  with 
all  the  teachings  of  political  science.  To  say  that  Social- 
ism is  Anarchy  is  to  fly  in  the  face  of  political  science. 

A  word,  in  connection  with  ^^Confiscation"  as  to  what 
the  Eevolutionary  Fathers  did.  I  refer  my  distinguished 
adversary  to  the  fiscal  history  of  George  Ill's  troubles.  The 
colonists  took  vastly  more  than  Mr.  Carmody  imagines.  To 
gauge  how  much  they  took,  look  at  the  subsequent  famines 
in  India.  Unable  to  keep  its  hands  upon  what  it  consid- 
ered its  legitimate  property  in  the  colonies,  the  British 
Crown  had  to  fall  back  upon  the  Hindoos  to  recoup  itself. 
Socialism  does  not,  cannot  contemplate  the  "confiscation'^ 
of  existing  wealth,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  wealth 
of  society  to-day  IS  the  property  of  the  working  class;  they 
produced  it.  They  would  be  only  "taking  their  own" — 
just  as  the  colonists  did. 

We  are  asked  for  a  complete  list  of  items  of  the  Socialist 
Eepublic.  The  same  demand  has  been  made  before  upon 
great  men  upon  great  occasions — and  with  as  little  sense. 

When  Columbus  proposed  to  start  on  his  trip  to  discover 
the  eastern  shores  of  Asia,  there  were  people  of  my  distin- 
guished opponent's  bent  of  mind  who  asked  him  where  the 
mountains,  and  the  mouths  of  rivers,  and  the  harbors  would 
lie.  His  answer  was :  "I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not  care. 
Wh  t  I  do  know  is  that  the  world  being  round,  if  I  travel 
westward  I  must  strike  land.^^ 

If  Columbus  is  too  ancient  in  history,  take  Washington. 
When  he  was  fighting  the  battles  of  independence  there 
were  Tory  pamphleteers  who  pestered  him  and  the  other 
Eevolutionary  Fathers  with  questions  upon  the  kind  of 
government  they  contemplated — ^was  it  to  be  a  Venetian 
Doge  affair,  a  Dutch  Eepublic  of  high  Mightinesses,  or 


DE  LEON-CAaMODY  DEBATE.  29 
what  ?   Washington's  answer  was :  ^Tirst  lick  the  British/^ 

Impossible  for  the  capitalist  system  with  its  political 
state  to  continue.  The  Goddess  of  Liberty  cannot  sit  upon 
bayonets.  With  a  logic  similar  to  that  of  Columbus's  an- 
swer, the  Socialist  says  that  the  Co-operative  Common- 
wealth, or  the  Industrial  Government  is  next  in  the  order 
of  social  systems.  No  more  than  Washington  can  we  give 
details  in  advance,  and  like  Washington  we  say:  First 
lick  the  British  of  to-day. 

We  are  told  ^^the  Courts  are  open  to  all/^  yet  in  these 
days  what  is  the  cry  that  is  going  up  from  one  end  of  the 
country  to  the  other  ? — ^the  cry  of  the  ^^Eecall.^^ 

We  are  told  the  doors  of  our  schools  are  open — and  rela- 
tively fewer  and  fewer  of  the  workers^  children  can  attend. 
Their  fathers  earn  too  little  to  clothe  and  feed  them  for 
school. 

We  are  told  to  use  the  ballot.   You  bet  we  will ! 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  the  first  to 
provide  for  its  own  amendment.  The  Consitution  of  the 
United  States  thereby  recognized,  or,  rather,  legalized  revo- 
lution, to  use  the  language  of  a  celebrated  man  in  this 
country.  In  the  language  of  Washington,  our  people  hold 
the  government  in  the  hollow  of  their  hand.  The  facts 
that  I  have  adduced,  the  arguments  that  I  have  presented 
demonstrate  that  the  time  has  come  for  the  oppressed  in 
this  country  to  make  use  of  that  Constitution's  amendment 
clause,  and  put  an  end  to  the  capitalist  social  system.  As 
Socialists,  as  men  who  stand  upon  the  International  prin- 
ciples of  Socialism,  as  men  who  recognize  that  the  Political 
State  is  rotten-ripe  for  overthrow,  we  organize  the  Indus- 
trial Unions  to  seize  the  reins  of  future  government,  and 
enforce  the  fiat  of  the  ballot  should  the  reactionists,  the 


40  DE  LEON-CARMODY  DEBATE. 

Bourbon-Copperheads  of  this  generation,  rise  against  it. 

It  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Socialists  that  the  American 
Flag  is  in  the  keeping  of.  It  is  the  Socialists  who  are 
to-day  bracing  themselves  against  the  attempt,  and  who 
will  block  the  attempt  to  re-introduce  despotism  under  the 
folds  of  the  Flag. 

We  certainly  do  propose  to  use  the  ballot  for  all  that  it 
is  worth.  We  are  children  of  the  Twentieth  Century,  and 
as  such  we  propose  to  deport  ourselves.  (Prolonged  ap-^ 
plause.) 


THE  FULL  SERIES  OF 


::  OR  :: 

History  of  a  Proletarian  Family 
Across  the  Ages 

By  EUGENE  SUE 

Consisting  of  the  Following  Works: 

THE  GOLD  SICKLE;  or,  Hena  the  Virgin  of  the  Isle  of  Ser^ 
THE  BRASS  BELL;  or,  The  Chariot  of  Death. 
THE  IRON  COLLAR;  or,  Faustina  and  Syomara. 
THE  SILVER  CROSS;  or,  The  Carpenter  of  Nazareth, 
THE  CASQUE'S  LARK;  or,  Victoria,  the  Mother  of  the  Camps. 
THE  PONIARD'S  HILT;  or,  Karadeucq  and  Ronan. 
THE  BRANDING  NEEDLE;  or.  The  Monastery  of  Charolles. 
THE  ABBATIAL  CROSIER;  or,  Bonadk  and  Septimine. 
THE  CARLOVINGIAN  COINS;  or,  The  Daughters  of  Oharle^ 
magne. 

THE  IRON  ARROW-HEAD;  or,  The  Buckler  Maiden. 
THE  INFANT'S  SKULL;  or.  The  End  of  the  World. 
THE  PILGRIM'S  SHELL;  or,  Fergan  the  Quarrymwn. 
THE  IRON  PINCERS;  or,  Mylio  and  Karvel. 
THE  IRON  TREVET;  or,  Jocelyn  the  Champion. 
THE  EXECUTIONER'S  KNIFE;  or,  Joan  of  Arc. 
THE  POCKET  BIBLE;  or.  Christian  the  Printer. 
THE  BLACKSMITH'S  HAMMER;  or,  The  Peasant  Code, 
TBE  SWORD  OF  HONOR;  or.  The  Foundation  of  the  French 
Repuhlic. 

THE  GALLEY  SLAVE'S  RING;  or,  The  Family  Lebrmn. 


Published  Uniform  With  This  Volume  By 

THE  NEW  YORK  LABOR  NEWS  CO. 

45  Rose  Street  New  York  City 


THE  FRANKLIN  PRESS, 

45  Rose  St.,  New  York 


THINGS  SEEN  AND  THINGS  NOT  SEEN.  By  Frederick  Bastiat 
•eiits.  The  "Americana"  says:  "Nowhere  will  reason  find  a  richer 
ny  of  weapons  available  against  Socialism  than  in  the  pamphlets 
(ished  by  Bastiat  between  1848  and  1850."  Every  anti-Socialist  ought 
ead  this  pamphlet  again  and  again. 

THINGS  SEEN 

and 

THINGS  NOT  SEEN 


From  the  French  of 

FREDERIC  BASTIAT 


Abridged  from  the  Translation  by  DR.  HODGSON  in  1852 


CASSELL  AND  COMPANY,  LIMITED 
London,  New  York,  Toronto  and  Melbourne 


1910 


COBDEN  CLUB. 


Address : — 

CAXTON  HOUSE, 

WESTMINSTER*  S.W. 


THINGS  SEEN  AND 

THINGS  NOT  SEEN. 


FROM  THE  FRENCH  OF 

FREDERIC  BASTIAT, 


Abridged  from   the    Translation  by 
Dr,  Hodgson  171  18^2. 


CASSELL    &    COMPANY,  Limited 

LONDON,   NEW  YORK,  TORONTO  &  MELBOURNE 

1910 


TABLE    OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Chapter    I.  The  Broken  Pane      ....  5 

II.  The  Cost  of  an  Army      ...  9 

III.  Government  Expenditure       .      .  13 

IV.  Public  Works   16 

V.    The  Middleman   19 

VI.    Protection   26 

VII.    Machinery   34 

VIII.    State  Credit   41 


J 


THINGS  SEEN  AND  THINGS 
NOT  SEEN. 


CHAPTER  1. 

THE  BROKEN  PANE. 

Have  you  ever  witnessed  the  rage  of  the  worthy 
citizen  Jacques  Bonhomme,*  when  his  rogue  of  a  son 
has  happened  to  break  a  pane  of  glass?  If  you  have 
ever  been  present  at  this  spectacle,  assuredly  you 
must  have  observed  that  all  the  bystanders,  were  they 
as  many  as  thirty,  made  haste  with  one  accord  to 
offer  to  the  unfortunate  owner  this  never  varying 
consolation,  It  is  an  ill  wind  that  blows  nobody 
good.  Such  accidents  do  good  to  industry.  Every 
body  must  live.  What  would  become  of  the  glaziers, 
if  windows  were  never  broken  ?  " 

Now  in  this  formula  of  condolence  there  is  an 
entire  theory,  which  is  the  basis  of  the  economic 
errors  of  a  large  part  of  the  world. 

Supposing  that  six  francs  (five  shillings)  are  re 

*  Jacques  Bonhomme  is  to  the  French  what  John  Bull  is 
to  the  English. 


4 


6 


quired  to  repair  the  damage,  if  it  is  meant  that  the 
accident  brings  six  francs  to  the  glazier,  and  encour- 
ages his  industry  to  the  extent  of  six  francs,  I  grant 
it  readily :  the  reasoning  is  just.  The  glazier  comes, 
he  finishes  the  job,  he  pockets  six  francs,  rubs  his 
hands,  and  in  his  heart  blesses  the  mischievous  urchin. 
This  is  what  is  seen. 

But  if,  by  way  of  inference,  it  be  concluded,  as  it 
is  too  often,  that  it  is  a  good  thing  to  break  windows, 
that  it  makes  money  circulate,  that  the  result  is  an 
encouragement  to  industry  in  general,  I  am  obliged 
to  cry  halt!  Your  theory  stops  at  what  is  seen,  it 
takes  no  account  of  what  is  not  seen. 

It  is  not  seen  that  since  our  citizen  has  spent  six 
francs  on  one  thing,  he  cannot  spend  them  on  another. 
It  is  not  seen  that  if  he  had  not  had  that  pane  of 
glass  to  replace,  he  would  have  replaced,  for  example, 
his  shoes  now  down  at  heel,  or  would  have  placed 
another  book  in  his  library.  In  short,  he  would  have 
made  of  those  six  francs  some  use  which  now  he 
cannot  make. 

Let  us  then  look  at  the  industry  of  the  country 
as  a  whole. 

The  pane  of  glass  being  broken,  the  industry  of 
the  glazier  is  encouraged  to  the  extent  of  six  francs ; 
that  is  what  is  seen. 

If  the  window  had  not  been  broken,  the  industry 
of  the  shoemaker  (or  some  other)  would  have  been 
encouraged  to  the  extent  of  six  francs:  this  is  what 
is  not  seen. 

And  if  one  took  into  consideration  what  is  not 
seen,  because  it  is  a  negative  fact,  as  well  as  what  is 


7 


seen,  because  it  is  a  positive  fact,  one  would  under- 
stand that  it  is  of  no  consequence  whatever  to  indus- 
try in  general,  or  to  the  sum  of  national  industry, 
that  windows  should  be  broken  or  should  not  be 
broken. 

Let  us  now  make  the  reckoning  of  Jacques  Bon- 
homme. 

In  the  first  case  supposed,  that  of  the  broken  pane, 
he  spends  six  francs,  and  has  neither  more  nor  less 
than  before,  the  enjoyment  of  a  pane  of  glass. 

In  the  second,  that  is,  if  the  accident  had  not  hap- 
pened, he  would  have  spent  six  francs  in  shoes,  and 
would  have  had  at  once  the  enjoyment  of  a  pair  of 
shoes  and  that  of  a  pane  of  glass. 

Now,  as  Jacques  Bonhomme  forms  part  of  society, 
it  must  thence  be  concluded  that,  considered  in  its 
totality,  and  the  balance  of  its  labours  and  enjoy- 
ments being  fairly  struck,  society  has  lost  the  value 
of  the  broken  pane. 

Hence  we  arrive  at  these  conclusions — 

"  Society  loses  the  value  of  objects  uselessly 
destroyed." 

"  To  break,  to  destroy,  to  dissipate,  is  not  to 
encourage  the  national  industry.'' 
"  Destruction  is  not  profit.'' 

The  reader  must  try  to  establish  clearly  that  there 
are  not  two  persons  only,  but  three  in  the  little  drama 
to  which  I  have  called  his  attention.  The  first, 
Jacques  Bonhomme,  represents  the  consumer  reduced 
by  the  breaking  of  the  pane  to  one  enjoyment  instead 
of  two.  The  second,  the  glazier,  is  the  producer 
whose  industry  is  encouraged  by  the  accident.  The 


8 


third  is  the  shoemaker  (or  any  other  craftsman), 
whose  industry  is  discouraged  to  the  same  extent  by 
the  same  cause. 

It  is  the  third  person  who  is  always  kept  in 
the  shade,  and  who,  personifying  what  is  not  seeUy 
is  a  necessary  element  in  .the  problem.  It  is  he 
who  shows  us  how  absurd  it  is  to  see  a  profit  in  a 
destruction.  It  is  he  who  will  soon  teach  us  that 
it  is  not  less  absurd  to  see  a  profit  in  protection, 
which  is,  after  all,  a  form  of  destruction.  Indeed, 
if  you  go  to  the  root  of  all  the  arguments  which  are 
used  in  favour  of  restriction  or  protection,  you  will 
find  that  they  all  resolve  themselves  into  another 
way  of  saying,  "  What  would  become  of  the  glaziers, 
if  windows  were  never  broken?  " 


9 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  COST  OF  AN  ARMY. 

It  is  with  a  nation  as  with  a  man.  When  a  nation 
wishes  to  allow  itself  a  satisfaction,  it  must  consider 
whether  the  satisfaction  is  worth  what  it  costs. 
Security  is  the  greatest  of  national  blessings.  If,  to 
acquire  it,  it  is  necessary  to  organise  a  hundred  thous- 
and men,  and  to  spend  a  hundred  millions  (of  francs), 
I  have  nothing  to  say.  It  is  an  enjoyment  purchased 
at  the  price  of  a  sacrifice. 

Let  there  be  no  mistake,  then,  as  to  the  scope  of 
my  position. 

A  member  of  Parliament  proposes  to  disband  a 
hundred  thousand  men,  in  order  to  relieve  the  tax- 
payers to  the  extent  of  one  hundred  milHon  of 
francs. 

The  taxpayers  may  reply : — "  These  hundred 
thousand  men,  and  these  hundred  millions,  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  national  security ;  it  is  a  sacrifice, 
but  without  this  sacrifice  France  would  be  torn  by 
factions,  or  invaded  by  a  foreign  enemy."  To  this 
argument  I  have  nothing  to  oppose.  It  may  be  true 
or  false  in  fact,  but  it  involves  no  heresy  in  economic 
theory.  The  heresy  begins  with  the  attempt  to  re- 
present the  sacrifice  as  an  advantage,  because  it 
profits  some  one. 


lO 

Yet  the  moment  such  a  proposition  is  made  some 
one  will  exclaim,  "  Disband  a  hundred  thousand  men ! 
are  you  serious  ?    What  will  become  of  them  ?  How 
will  they  subsist  ?    Will  it  be  by  labour  ?    But  do  you 
not  know  that  labour  everywhere  wants  employment 
— that  every  occupation  is  overstocked?    Would  you 
throw  them  into  the  market,  to  increase  competition 
and  to  depress  wages?     At  a  time  when  it  is  so 
difficult  to  earn  the  humblest  livelihood,  is  it  not 
fortunate  that  the  State  gives  bread  to  a  hundred 
thousand  men?    Consider,  besides,  that  the  army 
consumes  wine,  clothes,  arms — that  it  thus  creates 
activity  in  the  workshops  in  the  gai'rison  towns ;  and 
that  it  is,  in  a  word,  the  providence  of  the  numberless 
persons  who  live  by  supplying  its  wants.    Do  you 
not  shudder  at  the  thought  of  annihilating  this 
immense  industrial  movement  ?  " 

This  argument,  it  will  be  seen,  leaves  on  one  side 
the  necessities  of  the  service,  and  attempts  to  justify 
the  maintenance  of  a  hundred  thousand  soldiers  on 
alleged  economic  considerations.  It  is  these  con- 
siderations only  that  I  have  to  refute. 

A  hundred  thousand  soldiers  and  all  the  work- 
people and  tradesmen  who  supply  their  wants  are 
supported  by  means  of  the  hundred  million  francs 
subscribed  by  the  taxpayers.    This  is  what  is  seen. 

But  the  hundred  millions,  being  taken  from  the 
pockets  of  the  taxpayers,  cease  to  support  these  tax- 
payers and  those  who  supply  their  wants :  this  is 
what  is  not  seen.  Make  the  calculation,  put  down 
the  figures,  and  tell  me  where  is  the  profit  for  the 
nation  as  a  whol^. 


XI 


On  my  side,  I  will  tell  you  where  the  loss  is ;  and 
for  simplicity's  sake,  instead  of  speaking  of  a  hundred 
thousand  men  and  of  a  hundred  million  of  francs,  let 
us  reason  on  one  man  and  a  thousand  francs. 

Let  us  take  the  village  of  A.  The  recruiting 
sergeants  make  their  round,  and  carry  off  a  man.  The 
tax-gatherers  make  their  round  also,  and  carry  off 
a  thousand  francs.  The  man  and  the  money  are 
transported  to  Metz,  the  money  keeps  the  man  for  a 
year  in  barracks.  If  you  look  only  at  Metz  you  will 
see  an  advantage ;  but  if  you  cast  your  eyes  to 
the  village  of  A.  you  will  think  otherwise  ;  for,  unless 
you  are  blind,  you  will  see  that  this  village  has  lost 
a  labourer,  and  has  lost  the  thousand  francs  which 
he  would  have  earned  by  his  labour,  and  has  lost  the 
activity  which,  by  the  outlay  of  those  thousand  francs, 
he  would  have  diffused  around  him. 

At  the  first  glance,  it  would  seem  that  the  two 
cases  exactly  balance ;  that  what  before  passed  in 
the  village  of  A.  now  passes  at  Metz,  and  that  is 
all.  But  the  loss  is  in  this.  In  the  village  a  man 
dug  and  worked ;  he  was  a  labourer :  at  Metz, 
he  goes  through  his  facings — eyes  right,  eyes  left ;  he 
is  a  soldier.  The  money  and  its  circulation  are  the 
same  in  the  two  cases ;  but  in  the  one  -case  there  are 
three  hundred  days  of  useful  labour,  in  the  other 
three  hundred  days  of  useless  labour,  always  on  the 
supposition  that  a  part  of  the  army  could  be  dis- 
banded without  risk  to  national  security. 

Now,  let  us  consider  the  proposed  disbanding. 
You  point  to  an  increase  of  a  hundred  thousand 
labourers,  increased  competition,  and  the  lowering 


effect  of  that  on  the  rate  of  wages.  That  is  what 
yoii  see. 

But  here  cornes  what  you  do  not  see.  You  do 
not  see  that  to  disband  one  hundred  thousand  soldiers 
is  not  to  annihilate  a  hundred  million  francs,  but  to 
restore  them  to  the  taxpayers.  You  do  not  see  that 
by  thus  throwing  a  hundred  thousand  labourers  on 
the  market,  you  throw,  by  the  very  same  act,  into  the 
market  the  hundred  millions  destined  to  pay  their 
labour ;  that,  consequently,  the  same  measure  which 
increases  the  supply  of  labour  increases  also  the 
demand  for  it ;  whence  it  follows  that  your  fall  of 
wages  is  an  illusion.  Before,  as  after,  the  disbanding, 
there  are  in  the  country  a  hundred  million  francs, 
corresponding  to  a  hundred  thousand  men.  But 
before  the  disbanding  the  country  gave  the  hundred 
millions  to  the  hundred  thousand  men  for  doing 
nothing ;  after ^  it  gives  the  same  amount  of  money 
to  the  same  number  of  men  for  doing  something.  I 
repeat  that  whether  a  taxpayer  gives  his  money  to  a 
soldier  in  exchange  for  nothing,  or  to  a  labourer  in 
exchange  for  something,  all  the  ulterior  consequences 
as  to  the  circulation  of  the  money  are  the  same ; 
only,  in  the  second  case,  the  taxpayer  receives  some- 
thing, in  the  first  he  receives  nothing.  Therefore,  if 
the  soldiers  are  not  required  for  national  security, 
their  maintenance  is  pure  loss  to  the  nation. 

Let  those  who  think  otherwise  answer  this  ques- 
tion : — If  you  can  add  to  the  wealth  of  the  nation  by 
maintaining  soldiers,  why  not  enlist  the  whole 
population  ? 


13 


CHAPTER  III. 

GOVERNMENT  EXPENDITURE. 

Have  you  never  happened  to  hear  it  said,  "  Govern- 
ment expenditure  is  a  fertiHsing  dew?  See  how 
many  families  it  supports,  and  how  many  industries 
it  benefits." 

This  is  only  another  example  of  what  I  have 
explained  before. 

When  a  Government  servant  spends  for  his  profit 
five  francs  more,  that  implies  that  a  taxpayer  spends 
for  his  profit  five  francs  less.  But  the  outlay  of  the 
functionary  is  seen,  because  it  is  made ;  whilst  that 
of  the  taxpayer  is  not  seen,  because  it  is  prevented 
from  being  made. 

What  is  very  certain  is,  that  when  Jacques  Bon- 
homme  pays  five  francs  to  the  tax-gatherer,  he 
receives  nothing  in  return.  When,  by-and-by,  a  func- 
tionary who  spends  those  five  francs  returns  them  to 
Jacques  Bonhomme,  it  is  in  exchange  for  an  equal 
value  in  corn  or  in  labour.  The  net  result  is  for 
Jacques  Bonhomme  a  loss  of  five  francs. 

It  is  very  true  that  frequently,  most  frequently 
if  you  will,  the  functionary  renders  Jacques  Bon- 
homme an  equivalent  service.    In  this  case,  there  is 


no  loss  on  either  side,  but  only  exchange.  My  argu- 
ment, however,  does  not  at  all  apply  to  useful  func- 
tions. What  I  say  is  this:  if  you  wish  to  create  an 
office,  prove  its  usefulness  ;  prove  that  the  services^ 
which  it  renders  to  Jacques  Bonhomme  are  an 
equivalent  for  what  it  costs  him.  But  do  not  urge 
that  the  mere  employment  of  the  functionary 
encourages  industry. 

When  Jacques  Bonhomme  gives  five  francs  to  a 
functionary  in  return  for  a  service  really  useful,  the 
transaction  is  similar  to  giving  five  francs  to  a  shoe- 
maker for  a  pair  of  shoes.  Both  sides  are  quits. 
But  when  Jacques  Bonhomme  gives  five  francs  to  a 
functionary  to  receive  no  service  in  return,  or  even 
to  receive  annoyance,  it  is  as  if  he  gave  them  to  a 
robber.  It  is  of  no  use  to  say  that  the  functionary 
will  spend  these  five  francs  to  the  great  advantage  of 
the  national  industry ;  the  robber  would  have  done 
as  much.  Jacques  Bonhomme  would  have  done  as 
much  himself  if  he  had  not  met  on  the  road  either  of 
those  robbers,  the  legal  or  the  extra-legal. 

Let  me  take  a  case.  I  am  about  to  arrange  with 
a  ditcher  to  have  a  trench  made  in  my  field,  at  a 
cost  of  five  francs.  At  the  moment  of  concluding 
my  bargain  the  tax-gatherer  takes  my  five  francs,  and 
forwards  them  to  the  Minister  of  the  Interior ;  my 
bargain  is  broken  off,  but  Monsieur  the  Minister  will 
add  a  dish  to  his  dinner.  Upon  this  you  dare  to 
affirm  that  this  official  outlay  is  an  increase  of  the 
national  industry!  Do  you  not  understand  that 
there  is  here  only  a  displacement  of  satisfaction  and 
of  labour?    A  minister  has  his  table  better  furnished, 


IS 

it  is  true ;  but  a  farmer  has  his  field  worse  drained, 
and  that  is  not  less  true.  A  Parisian  cook  has 
gained  five  francs,  I  grant  you ;  but  grant  me 
that  a  provincial  ditcher  has  missed  gaining  five 
francs.  All  that  can  be  said  is,  that  the  official  dish 
and  the  cook  contented  are  what  is  seen  ;  the  marshy 
field,  and  the  ditcher  without  work,  are  what  is  not 
seen. 

Good  heavens !    What  a  labour  to  prove,  with 
^political  economy,  that  two  and  two  make  four;  and 
if  one  succeed  in  this  attempt,  you  cry,  "  It  is  so  clear, 
that  it  is  tiresome."    And  afterwards  you  vote  as  if 
nothing  had  been  proved  at  all. 


i6 


CHAPTER  IV. 

PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Nothing  is  more  natural  than  that  a  nation,  when 
convinced  that  a  great  undertaking  would  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  community,  should  execute  it  by  means  of 
a  contribution  raised  from  the  community.  But  I 
lose  patience,  I  confess,  when  I  hear  alleged  in  sup- 
port of  such  a  resolution  this  economic  absurdity — 
"  It  is,  besides,  a  means  of  creating  employment  for 
the  workmen." 

The  State  makes  a  road,  builds  a  palace,  improves 
a  street,  digs  a  canal ;  it  thus  gives  employment  to 
certain  workmen — that  is  what  is  seen  ;  but  it  deprives 
of  employment  certain  other  workmen — this  is  what 
is  not  seen. 

Take  a  road  in  course  of  execution.  A  thousand 
workmen  come  every  morning,  go  away  every  even- 
ing, receive  their  wages — that  is  certain.  If  the  road 
had  not  been  decreed,  if  the  funds  had  not  been  voted, 
those  worthy  people  would  not  have  found  in  that 
place  either  work  or  v/ages.    This  also  is  certain. 

But  is  this  all?  Must  not  the  State  organise  the 
receipt  as  well  as  the  outlay.^  Must  it  not  send  its 
tax-gatherers  abroad,  and  lay  its  taxpayers  under 
contribution  ? 


17 


Let  us  then  study  the  question  in  its  twofold 
bearing.  While  we  mark  the  destination  which  the 
State  gives  to  the  milHons  voted,  let  us  not  neglect 
to  mark  the  destination  which  the  taxpayers  would 
have  given — and  can  no  longer  give — to  those  same 
millions.  You  will  then  understand  that  a  public 
enterprise  is  a  medal,  with  two  sides.  On  one  appears 
a  workman  employed,  with  this  device — Wkat  is  seen  ; 
on  the  other,  a  workman  unemployed,  with  this  device 
— What  is  not  seen. 

The  sophism  which  I  combat  in  this  treatise  is  so 
much  the  more  dangerous,  when  applied  to  public 
works,  that  it  serves  to  justify  enterprises  the  most 
foolish,  and  prodigality  the  most  wanton.  When  a 
railway  or  a  bridge  has  a  real  utility,  it  is  enough  to 
appeal  to  that  utility  ;  but  if  one  cannot,  what  is  done  ? 
Recourse  is  had  to  that  mystification — "  Employment 
must  be  provided  for  the  workmen.*' 

Therefore,  orders  are  given  to  make  and  unmake 
terraces  in  the  Champ  de  Mars.  The  great  Napoleon, 
it  is  well  known,  thought  that  he  performed  a  philan- 
thropic act  in  employing  men  to  dig  pits  and  fill  them 
up  again.  He  used  also  to  say :  "  What  signifies  the 
result ;  we  must  consider  only  the  wealth  diffused 
among  the  working  classes? 

Let  us  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  question.  It  is 
money  that  deceives  us.  To  demand  money  from  all 
the  citizens  for  a  common  work,  is  in  reality  to  demand 
their  labour :  for  each  one  of  them  obtains  by  labour 
the  sum  which  he  has  to  pay  in  taxes.  Now,  it  is 
quite  intelligible  that  all  the  citizens  should  unite  to 
accomplish,  by  their  common  labour,  a  work  useful 

B 


i8 

to  all:  their  reward  would  be  in  the  results  of  the 
work  itself.  But  that  they  should  be  required  to 
make  roads  where  no  one  will  pass,  to  build  palaces 
which  no  one  will  inhabit,  and  all  this  under  pretext 
of  procuring  for  them  work,  is  an  absurdity,  and  they 
would  have  good  reason  to  reply — "  This  work  is  of 
no  use  to  us  ;  we  prefer  to  w^ork  on  our  own  account." 

The  process,  which  consists  in  making  the  citizens 
contribute  in  money  and  not  in  Iq^bour,  does  not  in 
the  least  change  the  general  result :  only,  by  the  latter 
proceeding,  the  loss  would  be  shared  by  all.  By  the 
former,  those  whom  the  State  employs  escape  their 
share  of  the  loss,  by  adding  it  to  that  which  their 
fellow- citizens  have  already  to  undergo. 

There  is  an  article  of  the  constitution  to  this 
effect : — Society  favours  and  encourages  the  develop- 
ment of  industry,  by  establishing,  by  means  of  the 
State,  of  the  departments  and  the  communes,  public 
works  suitable  for  occupying  the  hands  unemployed." 

As  a  temporary  measure,  in  a  time  of  crisis,  during 
a  severe  winter,  this  intervention  on  the  part  of  the 
taxpayer  may  have  good  effect.  It  acts  in  the  same 
way  as  an  insurance  office.  It  adds  nothing  to  work 
or  to  wages,  but  it  takes  the  work  and  wages  of 
ordinary  times,  to  bestow  them,  with  loss  it  is  true, 
on  periods  of  difficulty. 

As  a  permanent,  general,  systematic  measure,  it 
is  nothing  but  a  ruinous  mystification,  an  impossibility, 
a  contradiction  which  shows  a  little  stimulated  labour 
which  is  seen,  and  hides  much  prevented  labour  whieh 
is  not  seen. 


19 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  MIDDLEMAN. 

Society  is  the  sum  of  the  services  which  men  render 
to  each  other  wilhngly,  or  on  compulsion,  that  is  to 
say,  of  -public  services,  and  of  private  services. 

The  first,  imposed  and  regulated  by  the  law,  which 
it  is  not  always  easy  to  change  when  it  ought  to  be 
changed,  may  with  it  long  survive  their  first  utility, 
and  still  preserve  the  name  of  public  services,  even 
when  they  are  no  longer  services  at  all,  even  when 
tliey  are  only  public  vexations.  The  second  are 
within  the  domain  of  the  individual  will  and  responsi- 
bility. Everyone  gives  and  receives  what  he  will, 
what  he  can,  after  full  debate.  They  have  always 
in  their  favour  the  presumption  of  real  utility,  exactly 
measured  by  their  comparative  value. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  former  are  so  often 
struck  motionless,  while  the  latter  obey  the  law  of 
progress.  The  exaggerated  development  of  public 
services,  by  the  loss  of  force  which  it  involves,  tends 
to  constitute  in  the  heart  of  society  a  fatal  canker. 
Yet  many  modern  sects  are  so  blind  to  this  evil  that 
they  are  always  seeking  to  extend  "  State  enter- 
prise." 

These  sects  protest  strongly  against  what  they  call 
middlemen.    They  would  willingly  suppress  the  capi- 


20 


talist,  the  banker,  the  speculator,  the  contractor,  the 
retailer,  and  the  merchant,  accusing  them  of  inter- 
posing between  production  and  consumption,  in  orde^ 
to  levy  contributions  on  both,  without  rendering  any 
vahie  in  return.  Or  rather  they  would  transfer  to 
the  State  the  work  which  these  middlemen  accom- 
pHsh,  for  that  work  could  not  be  suppressed. 

The  sophism  of  the  socialists  on  this  point  consists 
in  showing  to  the  public  what  it  pays  to  middlemen 
in  exchange  for  their  services,  and  in  hiding  from 
them  what  they  would  have  to  pay  to  the  State.  It 
is  always  the  struggle  between  what  strikes  the  eye 
and  what  appears  only  to  the  mind,  between  what 
is  seen  and  what  is  not  seen. 

It  was  especially  in  1847,  and  on  occasion  of  the 
scarcity,  that  the  socialist  schools  endeavoured  with 
success  to  make  their  fatal  theory  current  among  the 
people.  They  knew  well  that  the  most  absurd  doc- 
trine has  always  some  chance  of  disciples  among  men 
who  suffer;  malesuada  fames T  ("Hunger  which 
persuades  to  evil.") 

Then  by  the  aid  of  great  phrases — "  one  man 
making  profit  by  the  ruin  of  another,  speculation  on 
hunger,  monopoly" — they  strove  to  calumniate  com- 
merce and  to  hide  its  benefits. 

Why,  said  they,  leave  to  merchants  the  care  of 
bringing  food  from  the  Crimea  and  the  United  States  ? 
Why  does  not  the  State  organise  a  service  for  supply 
and  storing  of  provisions?  The  State  would  sell  to 
the  people  at  cost  price;  the  poor  would  be  freed 
from  the  tribute  which  they  now  pay  to  commerce. 

The  tribute  which  the  people  pay  to  commerce, 


21 


that  is  what  is  seen.  The  tribute  wj;iich  the  people 
would  pay  to  the  State,  or  its  agents,  on  the  socialist 
system,  that  is  what  is  not  seen. 

In  what  consists  this  pretended  tribute  which  the 
people  pay  to  commerce?  In  this — that  two  men 
render  a  reciprocal  service,  in  all  liberty,  under  the 
influence  of  competition,  and  at  a  price  settled  by 
debate. 

When  the  hungry  stomach  is  at  Paris,  and  when 
the  corn  that  can  satisfy  it  is  at  Odessa,  the  suffering 
cannot  cease  unless  the  corn  and  the  stomach  meet. 
There  are  three  ways  of  effecting  this  meeting: — 
1st,  the  hungry  men  may  themselves  go  to  seek  the 
corn ;  2nd,  they  may  employ  those  who  make  this 
their  business  ;  3rd,  they  may  contribute  from  their 
means  and  charge  public  functionaries  with  the 
operation. 

Of  these  three  ways,  which  is  the  most  advan- 
tageous ? 

Men  have  always  voluntarily  chosen  the  second, 
at  all  times,  in  all  countries,  and  I  confess  that  this 
fact  alone  suffices,  in  my  eyes,  to  place  the  presump- 
tion on  that  side.  My  mind  refuses  to  admit  that  the 
whole  human  race  are  deceived  in  a  matter  which 
touches  them  so  nearly. 

Let  us  examine,  nevertheless. 

That  thirty-six  milHons  of  French  citizens  should 
go  to  seek  at  Odessa  the  corn  which  they  need  is 
evidently  impossible.  The  first  way,  therefore,  may 
be  set  aside.  The  consumers,  not  being  able  to  act  by 
themselves,  arc  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  middle- 
men, whether  functionaries  or  merchants. 


Let  us  here  remark,  however,  that  the  first  way 
would  be  the  most  natural.  In  truth,  it  is  for  him 
who  is  hungry  to  go  to  seek  his  corn.  It  is  a  labour 
which  concerns  him  ;  it  is  a  service  which  he  owes 
to  himself.  If  another  man  by  any  title  whatsoever 
renders  him  this  service  and  takes  this  trouble  for 
him,  that  other  has  a  right  to  compensation.  I  say 
this  now  to  show  that  the  services  of  middlemen 
deserve  remuneration. 

In  any  case  recourse  must  be  had  to  what  the 
socialists  term  a  parasite.  I  ask  which  of  the  two, 
the  merchant  or  the  functionary,  is  the  less  exacting 
parasite  ? 

Merchants — middlemen  if  you  will — are  led  by 
interest  to  study  the  seasons,  to  learn  day  by  day 
the  state  of  crops,  to  collect  information  from  all 
quarters  of  the  globe,  to  foresee  wants  and  to  take 
precautions  for  their  supply.  They  have  ships 
ready,  correspondents  everywhere,  and  their  im- 
mediate interest  is  to  buy  as  cheaply  as  possible, 
to  economise  on  all  the  details  of  the  operation, 
and  to  attain  the  greatest  results  with  the  least 
effort.  It  is  not  only  French  merchants,  but  the 
merchants  of  the  whole  world  who  are  engaged 
in  supplying  P'rance  w^th  provisions  in  the  day  of 
need  ;  and  if  interest  leads  them  irresistibly  to  per- 
form the  task  at  the  least  expense  to  themselves,  their 
competition  with  each  other  leads  them,  not  less  irre- 
sistibly, to  give  the  consumers  the  advantage  of  the 
economies  they  have  effected.  The  corn  arrives.  It 
is  the  interest  of  the  merchants  to  sell  it  as  soon  as 
possible   to    avoid   risks,   to   realise  their  funds, 


23 


and  begin  anew  if  occasion  permit.  Guided 
by  comparison  of  prices,  they  distribute  food 
over  the  whole  surface  of  the  country,  be- 
ginning always  at  the  dearest  point,  that  is  to  say, 
where  the  want  is  most  keenly  felt.  It  is  not  then 
possible  to  imagine  an  organisation  better  calculated 
for  the  interest  of  those  who  want  food ;  and  the 
beauty  of  this  organisation,  unperceived  by  the  social- 
ists, results  precisely  from  its  being  free.  Of  course, 
the  consumer  is  obliged  to  repay  to  the  merchants 
their  cost  of  transport,  shipments,  storage,  commis- 
sion, etc.  ;  but  on  what  system  would  it  not  be  neces- 
sary for  the  man  who  eats  the  corn  to  repay  the 
expenses  incurred  in  bringing  it  within  his  reach? 
It  is  necessary,  besides,  to  pay  a  remuneration  for 
the  service  rendered ;  but  the  amount  of  that  re- 
muneration is  reduced  to  the  miniminn  possible  by 
competition. 

Suppose  the  State  were  to  take  the  place  of 
independent  merchants,  what  would  be  the  result? 
Where  would  be  the  saving  to  the  pubhc?  Would 
fewer  ships  be  required,  fewer  sailors,  fewer  ship- 
ments, less  storage,  or  would  payment  for  all  these 
things  be  dispensed  with?  Would  it  be  in  the  mer- 
chants' profit?  But  would  your  delegates  and  func- 
tionaries go  to  Odessa  for  nothing?  Would  they 
undertake  the  voyage  and  the  labour  on  the  principle 
of  fraternity  ?  Must  they  not  live  ?  Must  not  their 
lime  be  paid  for  ?  And  do  you  think  that  this  would 
not  exceed  a  thousand  times  the  two  or  three  per 
cent,  that  the  merchant  gains — a  rate  to  which  he  is 
ready  to  bind  himself? 


24 


And  then,  think  of  the  difficulty  of  raising  so 
many  taxes,  of  distributing  so  much  food.  Think  of 
the  injustice,  of  the  abuse,  inseparable  from  such  an 
enterprise.  Think  of  the  responsibility  which  would 
weigh  on  the  government. 

The  socialists  do  not  see  that  society,  under  the 
influence  of  freedom,  is  a  true  association  of  human 
beings  for  their  common  good. 

Let  us  illustrate  this  by  an  example. 

That  a  man  may,  on  rising,  be  able  to  put  on  a 
coat,  land  must  have  been  enclosed,  cleared,  drained, 
ploughed,  sov/n  with  a  certain  sort  of  vegetable ; 
flocks  must  have  been  fed  ;  their  wool  must  have  been 
shorn,  spun,  woven,  dried,  and  converted  into  cloth ; 
this  cloth  must  have  been  cut,  stitched,  made  into 
clothing.  And  this  series  of  operations  implies  a 
multitude  of  others ;  for  it  supposes  the  use  of  agri- 
cultural implements,  sheepfolds,  manufactories,  coal, 
machines,  vehicles,  etc. 

If  society  were  not  really  an  association,  the  man 
who  wants  a  coat  would  be  obliged  to  labour  alone, 
and  by  himself  to  accomplish  the  innumerable  acts 
of  this  series,  from  the  first  stroke  of  the  mattock, 
with  which  it  begins,  to  the  last  stroke  of  the  needle, 
with  which  it  ends. 

But  thanks  to  the  sociability  which  is  the  distinc- 
tive character  of  our  species,  these  operations  are 
distributed  among  a  multitude  of  labourers,  and  it  is 
to  be  noted  that  the  larger  the  consumption  becomes, 
the  greater  is  the  subdivision  of  labour,  for  when  con- 
sumption is  large,  each  special  operation  can  be 
made  the  work  of  a  special  industry.    If,  for  example, 


25 


in  the  course  of  the  operation,  transport  becomes 
sufficiently  important  to  occupy  one  person,  spinning 
a  second,  weaving  a  third,  why  should  the  first  be 
regarded  as  more  a  parasite  than  the  two  others? 
Must  not  the  transport  be  effected?  Does  not 
he  who  effects  it  devote  to  it  time  and  labour? 
Does  he  not  spare  the  time  and  labour  of  his 
associates?  Is  not  this  exactly  what  those  do 
for  him  ?  Is  not  the  remuneration  of  all — that 
is  their  share  of  the  product — equally  subject 
to  the  law  of  supply  and  demand?  Is  not  this 
division  of  labour  effected  for  the  common  good? 
What  need  is  there,  under  pretext  of  organisation, 
to  destroy  these  voluntary  arrangements?  Does  an 
association  cease  to  be  an  association  because  each 
person  enters  and  quits  it  freely,  chooses  his  place  in 
it,  judges  and  stipulates  for  himself  on  his  own 
responsibility,  and  brings  to  his  share  of  the  common 
work  the  stimulus  and  guarantee  of  his  personal 
interest  ? 


26 


CHAPTER  VI. 

PROTECTION. 

Mr.  Prohibitor  employed  his  time  and  his  capital 
in  converting  into  iron  the  mineral  on  his  estates. 
As  nature  had  been  more  liberal  towards  the  Belgians, 
they  supplied  iron  to  the  French  cheaper  than  Mr. 
Prohibitor  could  do,  that  is  to  say,  the  French  people 
could  obtain  a  given  quantity  of  iron  with  less 
labour,  by  purchasing  it  from  the  Flemings  instead 
of  purchasing  it  from  Mr.  Prohibitor.  Guided  by 
their  interest,  the  French  people  did  not  complain 
of  this ;  but  every  day  witnessed  a  multitude  of 
nailers,  smiths,  cartwrights,  machinists,  farriers,  and 
workmen,  on  their  way,  personally,  or  represented  by 
middlemen,  to  provide  themselves  in  Belgium  with 
the  iron  they  wanted.  This  very  much  displeased 
Mr.  Prohibitor. 

At  first  he  thought  of  stopping  this  abuse  by  his 
own  strength.  This  was,  indeed,  the  fairest  plan,  as 
he  alone  suffered.  I  will  take  my  musket,  he  said 
to  himself,  I  will  stick  four  pistols  in  my  belt,  I 
will  fill  my  cartridge-box,  I  will  gird  on  my  trusty 
sword,  and  thus  equipped,  I  will  make  for  the  fron- 
tier ;    and   there,   the   first   smith,   nailer,  farrier, 


27 


machinist,  or  locksmith  that  may  present  himseit, 
with  the  object  of  buying  Belgian  iron  instead  of 
mine,  I  will  kill  him  in  order  to  teach  him  how  to 
live 

At  the  moment  of  setting  out,  Mr.  Prohibitor  made 
some  reflections  which  tempered  a  little  his  warlike 
ardour.  He  said  to  himself: — In  the  first  place,  it  is 
not  absolutely  impossible  that  my  fellow-country- 
men, who  are  buyers  of  Belgian  iron,  may  take  my 
doings  amiss,  and  instead  of  allowing  me  to  kill  them, 
may  kill  me.  In  the  second  place,  even  if  I  were  to 
take  with  me  all  my  servants,  we  could  not  guard  all 
the  passages.  Finally,  the  proceeding  would  cost 
me  very  dear,  dearer  than  the  result  is  worth. 

Mr.  Prohibitor  was  sorrowfully  about  to  resign 
himself  to  being  simply  free  like  everyone  else,  when 
a  bright  thought  flashed  across  his  brain. 

He  remembered  that  at  Paris  there  is  a  great 
manufactory  of  laws.  What  is  a  law  ?  he  said  to  him- 
self. It  is  a  measure  to  which,  when  once  decreed, 
be  it  good  or  bad,  all  are  obliged  to  conform.  For 
the  execution  of  a  law,  a  public  force  is  organised, 
and  to  constitute  the  said  public  force,  men  and  money 
are  taken  from  the  nation. 

If,  then,  I  obtained  from  the  great  Parisian  law- 
factory  a  little  law  to  this  effect — "  Belgian  iron  is 
prohibited  " — I  should  obtain  the  following  results : 
- — The  Government  would,  instead  of  the  few  servants 
whom  I  wished  to  send  to  the  frontier,  send  twenty 
thousand  sons  of  my  refractory  blacksmiths,  lock- 
smiths, nailers,  farriers,  artisans,  machinists,  and 
labourers.    Next,  in  order  to  keep  in  good  conditioi] 


28 


of  health  and  spirits  these  20,000  custom-house 
guards,  Government  would  distribute  among  them 
25  millions  of  francs,  taken  from  those  same  black- 
smiths, nailers,  artisans,  and  labourers.  The  guard 
would  be  more  effective ;  it  would  cost  me  nothing ; 
I  should  not  be  exposed  to  the  brutality  of  hagglers 
about  price ;  I  should  sell  my  iron  on  my  own 
terms ;  and  I  should  enjoy  the  sweet  satisfaction 
of  seeing  our  great  nation  ingloriously  mystified. 
That  would  teach  it  to  proclaim  itself  incessantly 
the  precursor  and  promoter  of  all  progress  in  Europe. 
The  game  will  be  exciting,  and  is  well  worth  the 
attempt. 

Mr.  Prohibitor  repaired  accordingly  to  the  manu- 
factory of  laws.  I  may,  some  other  time,  tell  the 
story  of  his  secret  negotiations  ;  but  at  present  I  will 
speak  only  of  his  ostensible  proceedings.  He  ad- 
dressed to  the  honourable  lawmakers  the  following 
considerations : — 

"  Belgian  iron  is  sold  in  France  at  ten  francs,  and 
this  obliges  me  to  sell  mine  at  the  same  price.  I 
should  greatly  prefer  to  sell  mine  at  fifteen,  and  I 
cannot  on  account  of  this  Belgian  iron,  which  may 
heaven  confound.  Construct  a  law  which  shall  say, 
'  Belgian  iron  shall  no  longer  enter  France.*  Imme- 
diately I  raise  my  price  five  francs,  and  see  the  conse- 
quences. 

For  every  cwt.  of  iron  that  I  shall  sell  to  the 
public,  instead  of  receiving  ten  francs,  I  shall  receive 
fifteen ;  I  shall  become  rich  all  the  sooner ;  I  will 
enlarge  my  works,  I  will  employ  more  workmen.  My 
workmen  and  I  will  expend  more,  to  the  great  advan- 


29 


tage  of  all  who  supply  us  for  many  leagues  round. 
These,  too,  having  a  greater  demand  for  their  pro- 
ducts, will  give  greater  employment  to  industry,  and 
by  degrees  activity  will  be  diffused  through  the  whole 
country.  This  blessed  five  franc  piece  which  you  will 
drop  into  my  pocket  will,  like  a  stone  thrown  into 
a  lake,  spread  to  a  distance  an  infinite  number  of 
concentric  circles." 

Charmed  by  this  discourse,  enchanted  to  learn  that 
it  was  so  easy  by  legislation  to  increase  the  wealth  of 
a  nation,  the  fabricators  of  laws  voted  for  protection. 
Why  speak  of  labour  and  economy?  they  said.  What 
avail  those  toilsome  means  of  augmenting  the  national 
riches  when  an  Act  of  Parliament  suffices  ?* 

And,  in  fact,  the  law  had  all  the  consequences 
announced  by  Mr.  Prohibitor  ;  only  it  had  others  also, 
for,  to  do  him  justice,  he  had  made  not  a  false 
reasoning,  but  an  incomplete  reasoning.  In  demanding 
a  privilege,  he  had  pointed  out  the  effects  which  are 
seen,  leaving  in  the  shade  those  which  are  not  seeii. 
It  is  for  us  to  repair  this  defect  of  observation,  in- 
voluntary or  designed. 

The  five  francs  thus  directed  by  legislation  into 
the  pocket  of  Mr.  Prohibitor  undoubtedly  constitute 
an  advantage  for  him  and  for  those  whose  labour  he 

•  For  reasons  which  it  would  require  long  explanation  to 
render  intelligible,  the  translator  has  thought  it  right  to 
depart  considerably  from  the  original  in  the  rest  of  this 
chapter.  While  he  regards  the  change  he  has  ventured  to 
make  as  due  at  once  to  the  subject,  and  to  the  author  him- 
self (whose  other  works  are  the  best  comment  upon  this),  it 
seems  due  to  the  reader  that  this  intimation  should  be  made. 


3^ 


employs.  And  if  the  new  law  had  brought  that  five 
francs  down  from  the  moon,  these  good  effects  would 
not  have  been  counterbalanced  by  any  compensating 
bad  effects.  Unhappily,  it  is  not  from  the  moon  that 
the  mysterious  five-franc  piece  proceeds,  but  in  truth 
from  the  pockets  of  a  smith,  a  nailer,  a  cartwright,  a 
farrier,  a  labourer,  a  builder,  in  a  word,  from  the 
pocket  of  Jacques  Bonhomme  himself,  who  has  to 
pay  fifteen  francs  for  exactly  the  same  quantity  oi 
iron  for  which  he  used  to  pay  ten  francs.  At  the  first 
glance,  it  must  be  perceived  that  the  question  is  thus 
greatly  changed,  for,  very  clearly,  the  profit  of  Mr. 
Prohibitor  is  compensated  by  the  loss  of  Jacques 
Bonhomme,  and  all  that  Mr.  Prohibitor  will  be  able 
to  do  with  those  five  francs  for  the  encouragement  of 
national  industry,  Jacques  Bonhomme  would  have 
done  himself.  He  could  have  thrown  the  stone  into 
the  lake  just  as  well  as  Mr.  Prohibitor,  and  there 
would  have  been  just  as  many  concentric  circles. 

Let  us  first  see  what  the  position  was  before  the 
issuing  of  the  supposed  law.  Jacques  Bonhomme 
is  possessed  of  15  francs,  the  reward  of  his  labour. 
What  does  he  do  with  these  1 5  francs  ?  Mr.  Pro- 
hibitor being  obliged  by  Belgian  competition  to  sell 
his  iron  at  ten  francs,  Jacques  Bonhomme  buys  from 
him  a  cwt.  of  iron  for  that  sum,  and  still  retains  five 
francs.  He  does  not  throw  them  away,  but  ( and  this 
is  what  is  not  seen)  he  transfers  them  to  some  branch 
of  industry  in  exchange  for  some  enjoyment — for 
example,  to  a  bookseller,  for  "  Bossuet's  Discourse 
on  Universal  History.''  Thus  the  national  industry 
is   encouraged   to   tlie   full   extent   of    15  francs. 


31 

namely,  lo  francs  which  go  to  the  iron-master  and  5 
francs  which  go  to  the  bookseller.  In  addition, 
Jacques  Bonhomme  obtains  for  his  15  francs  two 
objects  of  satisfaction,  namely,  first,  a  cwt.  of  iron,  and 
second,  a  book. 

But  it  wiirte  said : — "  You  assume  that  Jacques 
Bonhomme  buys  the  iron  from  Mr.  Prohibitor.  Were 
he,  however,  to  buy  the  Belgian  iron,  would  not  the 
French  national  industry  lose  precisely  what  the 
Belgian  national  industry  gained  ?  "  The  answer  is 
easy : — "  Not  so  ;  the  Belgian  will  not  give  his  iron 
for  nothing  (though  if  he  did,  would  that  be  a 
calamity  for  Frenchmen  who  wanted  the  iron?)  He 
demands  an  equivalent.  What  is  that  equivalent  to 
be  ?  All  exchange  is  of  commodity  against  com- 
modity. Thus,  either  directly  in  the  form  of 
French  goods,  or  indirectly  in  the  form  of  money, 
which  has  been  obtained,  as  only  it  can,  by  the 
previous  sale  of  French  goods,  the  Belgian  receives 
in  exchange  for  his  iron,  precisely  as  does  Mr.  Pro- 
hibitor, some  product  of  French  industry.  In  the 
one  case,  as  in  the  other,  the  national  industry  is 
equally  encouraged." 

Next,  suppose  that  the  law  has  been  passed. 
What,  then,  is  the  condition  of  Jacques  Bonhomme? 
What  is  that  of  the  nationgil  industry  ?  Jacques  Bon- 
homme, who  pays  his  fifteen  francs  to  Mr.  Prohibitor 
in  exchange  for  a  cwt.  of  iron,  has  no  more  than  the 
enjoyment  of  that  cwt.  of  iron.  He  loses  five  francs. 
Who  gains  them?  Certainly  not  the  national  in- 
dustry. For,  after  the  law,  as  before,  the  national 
industry  can  at  jnost  (with  a  reserve  to  be  yet  made) 


32 


be  encouraged  only  to  the  extent  of  fifteen  francs 
— five  of  which,  in  the  one  case,  are  employed  by 
Jacques  Bonhomme  for  his  own  satisfaction,  and  in 
the  other,  transferred  to  Mr.  Prohibitor  for  his. 
It  is  Mr.  Prohibitor  who  alone  gains  the  five  francs 
that  Jacques  Bonhomme  loses. 

Thus  what  is  not  seen  at  least  balances  what  is 
seen;  only  there  remains,  as  residue  of  the  opera- 
tion, an  injustice — and,  alas !  an  injustice  perpetrated 
by  the  law. 

But  this  is  not  all.  A  multitude  of  preventive 
officers  must  be  maintained,  not  in  any  useful,  or 
even  harmless  employment,  but  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  forbidding  the  passage  of  Belgian  iron  across  the 
French  frontier.  Even  if  the  cost  were  borne  by 
Mr.  Prohibitor,  for  whose  sole  advantage  the  exclusion 
is  enforced,  this  would  be  a  loss.  The  cost,  however, 
is  borne,  not  by  Mr.  Prohibitor,  but  by  the  community, 
who  thus  (in  addition  to  the  loss  of  the  industry 
of  all  these  officers)  suffer  doubly:  first,  in  the  en- 
hanced price  of  iron ;  second,  in  the  taxes  levied 
in  order  to  enforce  this  very  enhancement.  There 
is  a  twofold  injustice,  and  to  Jacques  Bonhomme  a 
twofold  loss.  And  even  if  his  first  loss,  caused  by 
the  advanced  price  of  iron,  were  exactly  compensated 
(waiving  the  question  of  injustice)  by  the  increased 
gain  of  Mr.  Prohibitor — the  second,  at  least,  is  pure, 
uncompensated  loss  to  Jacques  Bonhomme  and  to 
the  whole  French  nation.  This  again  is  what  is  not 
seen,  though  surely  it  is  important  that  it  should  be 
seen.  And,  be  it  once  for  all  observed,  that  what  is 
true  of  absolute  prohibition,  is  true,  in  degree,  of 


33 


protection  in  every  form,  however  modified,  and  under 
whatever  plausible  name  it  may  assume. 

The  violence  which  Mr.  Prohibitor  himself  em- 
ploys at  the  frontier,  or  which  he  causes  the  law  to 
employ  for  him,  may  be  judged  very  differently  in 
its  moral  aspect.  There  are  persons  who  think  that 
spoliation  loses  all  its  immorality  provided  it  be  legal. 
For  my  part,  I  can  imagine  no  circumstance  of 
greater  aggravation.  But,  however  that  may  be, 
certain  it  is  that  the  economic  results  are  always  bad. 
Turn  the  matter  over  how  you  wdll,  but  look  keenly, 
steadily,  and  you  will  see  that  no  good  issues  from 
spoliation,  legal  or  illegal.  To  use  violence  is  not 
to  produce,  it  is  to  destroy.  Alas !  if  violence  were 
production,  this  France  of  ours  would  be  much  richer 
than  she  is ! 


c 


34 


CHAPTER  VIL 

MACHINERY. 

*^  Curse  on  machines !  every  year  their  power,  con- 
tinually progressive,  consigns  to  pauperism  millions 
of  workmen,  by  depriving  them  of  work,  consequently 
of  wages,  consequently  of  bread !  Curse  on 
machines !  " 

This  is  the  cry  raised  by  vulgar  prejudice. 

But  to  curse  machines,  is  to  curse  the  intelligence 
of  man !  I  am  amazed  that  any  man  should  be  found 
to  hold  such  a  doctrine. 

For,  were  it  true,  what  is  its  inevitable  conse- 
quence? That  activity,  well-being,  riches,  happiness, 
are  possible  only  among  nations  stupid,  mentally 
torpid,  to  whom  God  has  not  given  the  fatal  gift  of 
thought,  of  observation,  of  combination,  of  invention, 
so  as  to  obtain  the  greatest  results  with  the  smallest 
means.  On  the  other  hand,  rags,  miserable  hovels, 
poverty,  famine,  are  the  inevitable  portion  of  every 
nation  which  seeks  and  finds,  in  iron,  in  fire,  in  wind, 
in  electricity,  in  magnetism,  the  laws  of  chemistry 
and  of  mechanics — in  a  word,  which  finds  in  the  forces 
of  nature  a  supplement  to  its  own  force. 

This  is  not  all:  if  this  doctrine  is  true — as  all  men 
think  and  invent — as  all,  in  fact,  from  the  first  to  the 


35 


last,  and  at  every  moment  of  their  existence,  seek  to 
gain  the  co-operation  of  nature's  forces,  to  make  more 
with  less,  to  reduce  their  own  manual  labour,  or  that 
of  others  for  which  they  pay,  to  attain  the  greatest 
possible  sum  of  satisfaction  with  the  least  possible 
sum  of  toil— it  must  be  concluded  that  humanity  at 
large  is  drawn  towards  its  decline  precisely  by  that 
intelligent  aspiration  towards  progress  which  impels 
each  of  its  members. 

Hence  we  ought  to  find  the  inhabitants  of  Lanca- 
shire flying  from  that  land  of  machinery  to  seek 
work  in  Ireland,  where  machinery  is  less  used 
.  There  is,  evidently,  in  this  mass  of  contradictions 
something  which  shocks  and  warns  us  that  the 
problem  contains  some  element  of  solution  not  yet 
sufficiently  evolved. 

The  whole  mystery  is  in  this:  behind  what  is  seen 
lies  what  is  not  seen.  I  will  endeavour  to  bring  it  to 
the  light.  My  demonstration  can  be  only  a  repetition 
of  the  foregoing,  for  the  problem  is  virtually  the  same. 

It  is  an  inclination  natural  to  all  men,  if  they  are 
not  hindered  by  violence,  to  seek  cheapness*— that 
is  to  say,  what  with  equal  satisfaction  saves  them 
labour — whether  that  cheapness  comes  from  a  skilful 
foreign  producer,  or  from  a  skilinX  mechanical 
producer, 

^Bastiat  has  remarked  in  another  of  his  works  that  the 
word  ckeafness  has  no  precise  equivalent  in  French.  Its 
substitute  is  hon  marche^  i.e.  good  market.  A  cheap  market 
is,  consequently,  a  good  market,  i.e.  for  the  buyers ;  but  that 
means  the  whole  community  ;  for  if  each  man  sells  one  sort 
of  article,  and  is  so  far  interested  in  its  dearne.ss,  all  men 


36 


The  theoretic  objection  brought  against  this  ten- 
dency is  the  same  in  the  two  cases.  In  one  case  as 
in  the  other,  it  is  reproached  with  having  reduced 
so  many  labourers  to  idleness.  Now,  to  render 
labour  not  inactivCy  but  free  and  at  disposal,  is  pre- 
cisely the  scope  and  result  of  this  inclination.  Hence, 
in  both  cases  also,  it  is  opposed  by  the  same  practical 
obstacle — violence.  The  legislator  prohibits  foreign 
competition,  and  discourages  mechanical  competition. 
For  what  other  means  can  there  be  to  arrest  an 
inclination  natural  to  all  men  but  to  deprive  them  of 
their  liberty? 

In  many  countries,  it  is  true,  the  legislator  strikes 
with  the  arm  of  law  only  one  of  those  two  sorts  of 
competition,  and  contents  himself  with  lamenting  the 
other.  But  this  only  proves  that  in  those  countries 
the  legislator  is  inconsistent. 

This  need  not  surprise  us.  In  a  wrong  course, 
men  are  always  inconsistent ;   otherwise  humanity 

buy  many  sorts  of  articles,  as  many  as  possible,  and  are 
consequently  interested  in  their  cheapness.  The  praise  of 
dearnesS;  in  which  protectionists  are  insane  or  impudent 
enough  to  indulge,  is  thus  in  contradiction  to  universal  ex- 
perience and  conviction,  as  expressed  in  the  very  structure  of 
one  of  the  richest  and  most  refined  languages  in  the  world. 
But  Bastiat  was  not  aware  that  the  English  cheap  is  only  an 
abbreviated  form  of  the  same  circumlocution  as  the  French 
ton  marche.  Cheap — (r/f^^-man ;  chop,  i.e.,  exchange; 
Ger.  kauffen;  Scot,  coff ;  Fr.  a-r^^^-ter  (acheter).  Cheap- 
side,  etc.,  etc.,)  means  only  purchase,  and  the  full  phrase  is 
good-cheap,  which  is  still  retained  as  a  proper  name.  In 
process  of  time  the  adjective  has  been  dropped,  the  noun 
having  absorbed  its  meaning  into  its  own. — Translator,  1852. 


.  37 

would  perish.  Never  have  we  seen,  and  never  shall 
we  see,  a  false  principle  pushed  to  its  full  length. 
I  have  elsewhere  said :  Inconsistency  is  the  limit  of 
absurdity.  I  might  have  added:  It  is  at  the  same 
time  its  proof. 

Let  us  come  to  our  demonstration ;  it  shall  not  be 
long.  Jacques  Bonhomme  had  two  francs,  which  he 
paid  to  two  workmen  whom  he  employed. 

But  he  one  day  devises  an  arrangement  of  cords 
and  weights,  which  abridges  the  labour  by  half. 

He  then  obtains  the  same  satisfaction  as  before, 
saves  a  franc,  and  discharges  a  workman. 

He  discharges  a  workman ;  this  is  what  is  seen. 

And  men  seeing  only  that,  exclaim :  "  See  how 
misery  follows  civilisation,  see  how  fatal  liberty  is  to 
equality!  The  human  mind  has  made  a  conquest, 
and  immediately  a  workman  falls  for  ever  into  the 
gulf  of  pauperism.  It  may  be,  however,  that  Jacques 
Bonhomme  will  continue  to  employ  the  two  workmen, 
but  he  will  not  give  them  more  than  half  a  franc 
each,  for  they  will  compete  with  each  other,  and  offer 
their  labour  on  lower  terms.  It  is  thus  that  the  rich 
become  always  richer,  and  the  poor  always  poorer. 
Society  must  be  re-constructed." 

Admirable  conclusion,  and  worthy  of  the  premises. 

Happily,  premises  and  conclusion  are  both  false, 
because  behind  the  half  of  the  phenomenon  which 
is  seen,  there  is  the  other  half  which  is  not  seen. 

People  do  not  see  the  franc  saved  by  Jacques 
Bonhomme,  and  the  necessary  effects  of  that  saving. 

Since,  in  consequence  of  his  invention,  Jacques 
Bonhomme  spends  now  only  one  franc  on  manual 


53 


labour,  in  the  pursuit  of  a  given  satisfaction,  another 
tranc  is  left  to  him. 

If  then,  there  is  in  the  world  a  workman  who 
offers  his  hands  unemployed,  there  is  also  in  the  world 
a  capitalist  who  offers  his  franc  unemployed.  These 
two  elements  meet  and  combine. 

And  it  is  clear  as  day  that  between  the  offer  and 
the  demand  of  labour,  between  the  offer  and  the 
demand  of  wages,  the  relation  is  nowise  changed. 

The  invention,  and  one  workman,  paid  with  the 
first  franc,  now  do  the  work  which  formerly  two 
workmen  accomplished. 

The  second  workman,  paid  with  the  second  franc, 
accomplishes  a  new  work. 

What,  then,  is  there  changed  in  the  world  ?  There 
is  a  national  satisfaction  the  more ;  in  other  terms, 
the  invention  is  a  gratuitous  conquest,  a  gratuitous 
profit  for  humanity. 

From  the  form  which  I  have  given  to  my  demon- 
stration, some  might  draw  this  consequence :  "  It  is 
the  capitalist  who  receives  all  the  advantage  of 
machines.  The  class  who  live  by  wages,  even  if 
their  loss  by  the  introduction  of  machinery  is  only 
momentary,  never  profit  by  it,  since, .  according  to 
your  own  statement,  machines  displace  a  portion  of 
national  labour  without  diminishing  the  total,  but 
also  without  increasing  it." 

It  does  not  enter  into  the  plan  of  this  little  work 
to  solve  all  objections.  Its  sole  aim  is  to  combat 
a  vulgar  prejudice,  very  dangerous,  and  very  widely 
spread  I  wished  to  prove  that  a  new  machine  places 
at  disposal  a  certain  number  of  hands,  only  by  plac- 


39 


ing  also  and  irresistibly  at  disposal  the  remuneration 
which  pays  them.  Those  hands  and  that  remuneration 
combine  to  produce  what  it  was  impossible  to  produce 
before  the  invention ;  whence  it  follows,  that  the 
machine  gives  as  its  definitive  result  an  increase  of 
satisfaction,  with  an  equal  anwimt  of  labour. 

Who  obtains  this  surplus  of  satisfaction?  Yes,  it 
is  at  first  the  capitalist,  the  inventor,  who  successfully 
employs  the  machine,  and  it  is  the  reward  of  his 
genius  and  his  boldness.  In  this  case,  as  we  have 
seen,  he  realises  on  the  cost  of  production  a  saving, 
which,  in  whatever  way  it  may  be  expended  (and 
expended  it  always  is),  employs  just  as  many  hands 
as  the  machine  has  set  free. 

But  soon  competition  forces  him  to  lower  the  price 
of  the  article  he  sells  in  the  proportion  of  that  very 
saving. 

And  then  it  is  no  longer  the  inventor  who  receives 
the  benefit  of  the  invention ;  it  is  the  purchaser  of 
the  product,  the  consumer,  the  public,  including  the 
workmen — in  a  word,  it  is  humanity. 

And  what  is  not  seen  is,  that  the  saving,  thus 
gained  for  all  the  consumers,  enables  them  to  give 
employment  to  other  labour  to  the  full  extent  to  which 
the  machine  has  displaced  labour  in  the  particular 
industry  concerned. 

Thus,  returning  to  the  previous  example :  Jacques 
Bonhomme  obtains  a  product  by  spending  two  francs 
in  wages.  Thanks  to  his  invention,  manual  labour 
costs  him  now  only  one  franc.  So  long  as  he  sells 
the  product  at  the  same  price,  there  is  a  workman  the 
fewer  employed  in  making  that  special  product — 


40 


that  IS  what  is  seen  ;  but  there  is  a  workman  the  more 
employed  by  the  franc  which  Jacques  Bonhomme 
has  saved — that  is  what  is  not  seen. 

When,  by  the  natural  course  of  things,  Jacques 
Bonhomme  is  compelled  to  lower  by  a  franc  the  price 
of  the  product,  then  he  no  longer  realises  a  saving — 
then  he  no  longer  disposes  of  a  franc  to  obtain  from 
the  national  labour  a  new  production.  But,  in  this 
respect,  his  customer  is  put  in  his  place,  and  that 
customer  is  humanity.  Whoever  buys  the  product 
pays  for  it  a  franc  the  less,  saves  a  franc,  and  can 
therefore  afford  to  buy  something  else,  or  to  lend  his 
franc  to  some  other  person  who  wants  to  buy  some 
other  thing.    This,  a  gain ,  is  what  is  not  seen. 

Thus  all  industries  are  indissolubly  allied.  They 
form  a  vast  whole,  of  which  all  the  parts  communicate 
by  secret  channels.  An  economy  effected  on  one  is 
profitable  to  all.  The  grand  result  is,  let  it  be  well 
understood,  that  never  is  this  economy  effected  at  the 
cost  of  labour  and  of  w^ages. 


41 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

STATE  CREDIT. 

At  all  times,  but  especially' of  late  years,  the  notion 
has  prevailed  of  rendering  riches  universal  by  making 
credit  universal. 

I  do  not  think  that  I  exaggerate  when  I  say,  that 
since  the  revolution  of  February  (1848)  the  Parisian 
press  has  sent  forth  more  than  ten  thousand  pamphlets 
proclaiming  this  solution  of  the  social  problem. 

This  solution,  alas!  is  based  on  a  mere  optical 
illusion,  if,  indeed,  an  illusion  can  be  called  a  base. 

At  the  outset,  coined  money  is  confounded  with 
commodities,  then  paper  money  is  confounded  with 
coined  money,  and  out  of  this  twofold  confusion  a 
reality  is  pretended  to  be  evolved. 

It  is  absolutely  necessary,  in  this  question,  to  for- 
get money,  gold,  silver,  or  paper,  bank  bills,  and  all 
the  other  instruments,  by  means  of  which  com- 
modities pass  from  hand  to  hand,  in  order  to  see  only 
the  products  themselves,  which  are  the  veritable  sub- 
ject matter  of  all  loans. 

For,  when  a  labourer  borrows  50  francs  to  buy  a 
plough,  it  is  not  in  reality  50  francs  that  are  lent  to 
him,  it  is  the  plough. 


4^ 

And  when  a  merchant  borrows  20,000  francs  to 
buy  a  house,  it  is  not  20,000  francs  that  he  owes,  it 
is  the  house. 

The  money  in  these  cases  serves  only  to  facilitate 
arrangements  among  the  several  parties. 

Peter  may  not  be  disposed  to  lend  his  plough, 
and  James  may  be  disposed  to  lend  his  money.  What, 
then,  does  WilHam  do  ?  He  borrows  the  money  from 
James,  and  with  this  money  he  buys  Peter's  plough. 

Eut,  in  truth,  no  one  borrows  money  for  money's 
sake.  Money  is  borrowed  with  a  view  to  obtain 
commodities. 

Now,  in  no  country  can  more  commodities  be 
transmitted  from  hand  to  hand  than  that  country 
possesses. 

Whatever  be  the  amount  of  metal  or  of  paper 
money  in  circulation,  the  whole  number  of  borrowers 
cannot  receive  more  ploughs,  houses,  utensils,  pro- 
visions, raw  materials,  than  the  whole  number  of 
lenders  can  supply. 

For,  let  us  hold  firm  by  this  obvious  principle, 
that  every  borrower  supposes  a  lender,  and  that  every 
act  of  borrowing  implies  a  loan. 

This  point  fixed,  what  good  can  institutions  of 
credit  effect  ?  They  can  facilitate,  for  borrowers  and 
lenders,  the  means  of  finding  each  other,  and  coming 
to  agreement.  But  what  they  cannot  do  is  to  increase 
instantaneously  the  mass  of  objects  borrowed  and 
lent. 

To  effect  the  wishes  of  our  reformers,  however, 
it  would  be  necessary  for  them  to  have  this  power- 
since  they  aim  at  nothing  less  than  to  place  ploughs, 


43 


houses,  utensils,  provisions,  raw  materials,  in  the  hands 
of  all  who  desire  them. 

And  for  this  purpose,  what  is  their  device  ? 

To  give  to  loans  the  guarantee  of  the  State. 

Let  us  sound  the  depths  of  this  question,  for  there 
is  in  it  something  which  is  seeUy  and  something  also 
which  is  not  seen.    Let  us  try  to  see  both. 

Suppose  that  there  is  only  one  plough  in  the 
world,  and  that  two  labourers  try  to  obtain  it. 

Peter  possesses  the  only  plough  in  France  at 
disposal.  John  and  James  wish  to  borrow  it.  John, 
by  his  honesty,  by  his  good  conduct,  and  good  char- 
acter, offers  guarantees.  He  is  trusted,  he  has  credit, 
James  does  not  inspire  confidence,  or  he  inspires  less. 
Naturally  it  happens  that  Peter  lends  his  plough  to 
John. 

But  suppose  the  State  interferes  and  says  to 
Peter,  "  Lend  your  plough  to  James,  and  I  will  guar- 
antee your  being  paid  ;  and  this  guarantee  is  worth 
more  than  that  of  John,  for  he  has  only  his  own 
means  to  answer  to  his  engagements,  while  I  (though 
I  have  nothing  of  my  own,  it  is  true)  dispose  of  the 
means  of  all  the  taxpayers ;  and  it  is  with  their 
money  that,  in  case  of  need,  I  will  pay  you  principal 
and  interest." 

In  consequence,  Peter  lends  his  plough  to  James : 
this  is  what  is  seen. 

And  the  socialists  rub  their  hands  and  say,  "  Sed 
how  our  plan  has  succeeded !  Thanks  to  the  inter- 
vention of  the  State,  poor  James  has  a  plough.  He 
will  be  no  longer  obliged  to  dig  the  ground  ;  he  is 
now  on  the  road  to  fortune.    It  is  a  good  thing  for 


44 


him,  and  a  profit  for  the  nation,  taken  in  the 
mass.'' 

Alas,  no!  gentlemen,  it  is  not  a  profit  for  the 
nation,  for  here  comes  what  is  not  seen. 

It  is  not  seen  that  the  plough  is  in  the  hands  of 
James  only  because  it  is  not  in  the  hands  of  John. 
//  is  not  seen  that  if  James  ploughs  instead  of  digging, 
John  will  be  obliged  to  dig  instead  of  ploughing ; 
and  that,  consequently,  what  was  considered  as  an 
increase  of  loan  is  in  truth  only  a  displacement  of 
loan. 

Besides,  it  is  not  seen  that  this  displacement  in- 
volves a  serious  twofold  injustice.  Injustice  towards 
John,  who  sees  himself  deprived  of  the  credit  which 
he  had  merited  and  acquired  by  his  honesty  and 
industry.  Injustice  towards  the  ratepayers,  who  are 
made  liable  to  pay  a  debt  which  concerns  them  not. 

Will  it  be  said  that  the  government  offers  to  John 
the  same  facilities  as  to  James?  But,  since  there  is 
only  one  plo6gh  at  disposal,  two  cannot  be  lent.  The 
argument  always  returns  to  the  implied  assertion  that, 
thanks  to  the  intervention  of  the  State,  there  will  be 
more  borrowings  than  there  can  be  lendings,  for  the 
plough  here  represents  the  mass  of  capitals  at  dis- 
posal. 

I  have  reduced,  it  is  true,  the  operation  to  its 
simplest  expression ;  but  try,  by  the  same  touchstone, 
the  most  complicated  institutions  of  credit  that  a 
government  can  devise,  and  you  will  be  convinced 
that  they  can  have  this  result  only — to  displace 
credit,  not  to  increase  it.  In  a  given  country,  and 
at  a  given  time,  there  is  only  a  certain  sum  of  avail- 


45 


able  capital,  and  it  all  finds  employment  for  itself. 
By  guaranteeing  men  who  are  of  themselves  in- 
solvent, the  State  may,  indeed,  increase  the  number 
of  those  who  seek  to  borrow,  and  may  thus  raise  the 
rate  of  interest  (always  to  the  injury  of  the  taxpayer), 
but  what  it  cannot  do  is  to  increase  the  number  of 
lenders,  and  the  total  amount  of  loans. 

The  same  consideration  applies  as  already  pointed 
out  in  a  previous  chapter,  to  direct  expenditure  by 
the  State.  If,  for  example,  fifty  millions  are  expended 
by  the  State  they  cannot  be  expended  by  the  in- 
dividual taxpayer,  as  otherwise  they  would  have  been. 
From  all  the  good  attributed  to  the  public  expendi- 
ture effected,  must  then  be  deducted  all  the 
evil  of  private  expenditure  prevented ;  unless, 
indeed,  it  be  said  that  Jacques  Bonhomme  would 
have  made  no  use  of  the  five-franc  pieces  he  had 
earned,  and  of  which  the  State  robs  him  ;  an  absurd 
assertion,  for  he  would  not  have  taken  the  trouble 
to  earn  them,  had  he  not  hoped  for  the  satisfaction 
of  employing  them.  He  would  have  repaired  the 
fence  of  his  garden,  and  he  can  no  longer  do  so ; 
this  is  what  is  not  seen.  He  would  have  spread  his 
field  with  marl,  and  he  can  no  longer  do  so  ;  this  is 
what  is  not  seen.  He  would  have  added  a  story  to 
his  cottage,  and  he  can  do  so  no  longer ;  this  is  what 
is  not  seen.  He  would  have  increased  his  stock  ol 
implements  ;  he  can  do  so  no  longer ;  this  is  what 
is  not  seen.  He  would  have  fed  himself  better, 
clothed  himself  better,  obtained  better  instruction  for 
his  son  ;  he  would  have  added  to  his  daughter's  dowry, 
and  none  of  these  things  is  he  now  able  to  do ; 


46 

this  is  what  is  not  seen.  He  would  have  joined  a 
mutual  benefit  society;  he  can  no  longer  do  so; 
this  is  what  is  not  seen.  These  are  the  enjoyments 
which  are  taken  from  him.  In  addition,  the  gar- 
dener, the  carpenter,  the  smith,  the  tailor,  the  village 
schoolmaster,  whose  labour  he  would  have  encour- 
aged, have  all  suffered  an  injury — this  is  still  what 
is  not  seen. 

The  only  object  which  I  have  in  view  is  to  make 
the  reader  understand,  that  in  all  public  expenditure, 
and  in  all  employment  of  State  credit  behind  the 
apparent  good  there  is  an  evil  more  difficult  to  dis- 
cern. So  far  as  in  me  lies,  I  would  accustom  him  to 
see  the  one  as  well  as  the  other,  and  to  take  both 
into  account. 


FINIS. 


Printed  by  Ca»sell  and  Company,  La  Belle  Sauvage,  London,  E.G. 


! 

COBDEN  CLUB  LEAFLETS. 


158.  My  Sentiments  on  the   Fiscal  Question.    By  Alfred 

Morris.    4  pp. 

159.  Retaliation— Is  It  Feasible?  By  Sydney  Buxton,  M.P.  8pp 

163.  Imports  and  Exports.    By  Russell  Rea,  M.P.    4  pp. 

164.  Engineering  and  Free  Trade.    By  George  Barnes.    4  pp. 

165.  The  Candlemakers'  Petition.    After  Bastiat.    4  pp. 

166.  Cobden  on  Armaments  and  Expenditure.    8  pp. 

167.  Cobden  on  International  Peace.   8  pp. 
169.  Mr.  Chamberlain  and  Agriculture.    12  pp. 

171.  Foreign  and  Colonial  Tariff  Barriers.    2  pp. 

172.  Why  Foreign  Nations  h^ve  gone  back  to  Protection. 

By  J.  S.  Mann.    12  pp. 

175.  Five  Cardinal  Diagrams  of  Free  Trade.    Price  id. 

Retrenchment  and  Finance :  Memorandum  of  the  Cobden 
Club  in  view  of  the  Budget  Discussions  for  the  year  1906-1907. 

Fiscal  Preference,   An  Appeal  from  Members  of  the  Imperial 
Parliament  to  the  Electors  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia. 

176.  Australian  Preference.    8  pp. 

177.  Report  of  the  Import  Duties  Commission  of  1840.  8  pp. 

178.  Tariff  **  Reform"  and  the  Unemployed.  4  pp. 

179.  Is  our  Free  Trade  System  the  Cause  of  Capital  leaving 

the  Country  ?  2  pp. 

180.  The  Boot  Industry  and  the  American  Dumper;  By 

W.  A.  Wilson.   4  pp. 

181.  The  Building  Trade  and  Tariff  Reform.    4  pp. 

182.  Free  Trade  v.  Protection:  Correspondence  between 

Mr.  W.  H.  Lever,  M.P.,  and  one  of  his  constituents. 

183.  The  Tariff  Handicap.    By  Alfred  Morris.    4  pp. 


Recent  Cobden  Club 
Publications. 


Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  International  Free  Trade 
Congress,  1908.    5s.    Cheap  Edition,  is. 

Tariff  Makers:  Their  Alms  and  Methods.  A  Sequel  to  Fact 
V,  Fiction.    By  Lord  Eversley,  is. 

Fallacies  of  Protection,  being  Bastiat's  ''Sophismes  Econo* 
miques."  Translated  by  Dr.  Stirling,  with  an  introductory 
note  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  H.  H.  Asquith,  M.P. 

The  West  of  England  Woollen  Industry  under  Protection 
and  under  Free  Tradet  By  Dorothy  M.  Hunter.  Price  6d. 

Budget  and  Tariff  Compared    Price  id 

Things  Seen  and  Things  Not  Seen.    Translated  from  the  French 
of  F.  Bastiat.    Price  id. 

Fact  versus  Fiction:  The  Cobden  Club's  Reply  to  Mr. 
Chamberlain.    Price  id. 

Shipping  and  Free  Trade.    By  Russell  Rea,  M.P.     Price  3d. 

The  Lessons  of  History  on  Free  Trade  and  Protection,  By 

Sir  Spencer  Walpole.   Price  2d* 

Free  Trade.    By  Lord  Avebury.  3d. 

insular  Free  Trade,  ^Theory  and  Experience.     By  Russell 
Rea,  M  P.  6d. 

The  Case  against  Protection .    By  E.  Cozens  Cooke.  3d. 

The  "Scientific"  Tariff.  An  Examination  and  Exposure. 
3d. 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 
of 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS 

Delivered  before  the  Annual  Convention 
of  the  New  York  Press  Association  at  the 
Onondaga  Hotel,  Syracuse,  June  4,  1914 


THE  LYONS  REPUBLICAN 
Lyons,  New  York 


Presidential  Address  of  Charles  H.  Betts,  delivered  before  the 
annual  convention  of  the  New  York  Press  Association  at 
Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  June  4,  1914. 


Members  of  the  New  York  Press  Association: 

I  want  to  take  this  opportunity  to  say  that  I  am  in  favor  of 
votes  for  women.  I  am  in  favor  of  intellectual  liberty  and  polit- 
ical equality.  I  know  of  no  reason  why  talents  and  capabilities 
should  be  suppressed  and  hidden  under  a  bushel  simply  because 
they  happen  to  be  possessed  by  a  woman. 

One  of  the  main  arguments  urged  against  extending  the  fran- 
chise to  women  is  the  one  to  the  effect  that  because  women  can- 
not go  to  war,  therefore,  they  should  not  be  permitted  to  vote. 
This  sounds  plausible  on  the  face  of  it  unless  you  stop  to  think. 
When  your  gray  matter  gets  to  work  you  will  then  be  able  to  dis- 
cover that  if  there  were  no  women  there  would  be  no  soldiers. 
You  will  also  discover  that  it  is  quite  as  important  to  supply  a 
soldier  as  to  be  one.  If  you  keep  on  thinking  and  supplement 
your  thinking  by  a  little  intelligent  reflection  you  will  finally 
arrive  at  the  correct  conclusion  that  every  hero  who  ever  stood 
or  fell  in  the  ranks  of  an  army  was  his  mother's  substitute. 

The  Yellow  Age 

Literature  is  the  expression  of  a  nation's  life,  the  shadow  of 
the  people's  character,  therefore,  the  trashy  literature  of  our 
time  is  evidence  of  mental  if  not  moral  deterioration. 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  the  future  historians  will  be  com- 
pelled to  characterize  this  as  the  yellow  age. 

We  are  living  in  the  age  of  yellow  journals,  of  yellow 
magazines  and  of  yellow  dogs.  This  trio  of  yellows  hold  the 
center  of  the  stage  with  demagogues  as  end  men,  and  they  are 
conducting  the  most  spectacular  vaudeville  ever  witnessed  by  the 
world.  Throughout  all  of  our  present  day  literature,  especially 
the  large  sensational  newspapers  and  magazines  and  much  of  the 
light  fiction,  there  is  the  saffron  tint  and  all  through  our  politics, 
the  nation  over,  goes  scurrying  to  and  fro,  the  yellow  dog. 


4 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


It  matters  not  whether  it  is  the  sanctimonious  editor  of  the 
Ladies'  Home  Journal  discussing  the  science  of  eugenics,  the  no- 
toriety seeking  editor  of  Collier  s  Weekly  attacking  patent  medi- 
cines, the  uplift  editor  of  Harper  s  Weekly  discussing  the  desira- 
biHty  of  easy  divorces,  or  the  editors  of  sensational  newspapers 
and  magazines  publishing  the  private  letters  of  public  men  se- 
cured from  literary  thieves  and  purchased  perjurers,  they  are  all 
animated  by  one  and  the  same  spirit  and  they  are  all  tinged  with 
yellow. 

The  motive  back  of  all  this  sensationalism  is  greed  and  the 
object  graft.  It  is  all  done  to  increase  circulation  and  add  to  cash 
receipts  by  inflaming  passion  and  appealing  to  morbid  curiosity. 
While  denouncing  corruption  and  graft  in  politics  these  papers 
and  magazines  become  the  leaders  of  graft  by  corrupting  the 
public  mind  in  order  to  get  the  people's  money. 

Many  of  them  indulge  in  fiendish  attacks,  with  an  utter  dis- 
regard of  truth,  not  only  upon  the  character  and  reputation  of 
our  public  men  but  upon  our  representative  government  and 
American  institutions.  They  collect  scandal  and  pile  up  false- 
hoods for  the  express  purpose  of  coining  them  into  cash  and  then 
they  circulate  them  in  the  name  of  virtue  and  reform.  There  is 
and  there  can  be  no  lower  or  more  despicable  calling. 

The  latest  acquisition  of  this  style  of  journalism  is  the  moral 
and  political  bankrupt  who  turns  informer,  liar  and  character 
assassin  for  a  consideration.  The  editorial  scavengers  who  have 
inaugurated  this  system  of  journalism  have  put  themselves  on 
the  same  level  with  the  purchased  perjurers,  the  same  as  the 
bribe -giver  is  as  guilty  as  the  bribe-taker. 

There  ought  to  be  a  federal  law  enacted  making  it  a  crime 
punishable  by  imprisonment  to  steal  the  private  letters  of  a  public 
man  and  it  should  be  made  equally  a  crime  to  publish  such  letters 
except  when  they  form  a  part  of  a  court  record  or  a  part  of  the  ^ 
record  of  an  investigation.  If  the  ablest  statesmen  and  lawyers 
of  this  country  and  Europe  honestly  and  conscientiously  differ 
in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  a  section  of  a  treaty  drawn  by 
experts ;  if  the  best  legal  talent  is  divided  so  as  to  give  a  directly 
opposite  interpretation  to  such  an  instrument,  how  easy  it  must 
be  to  misconstrue  and  misrepresent  the  private  letters  of  a  public 
man. 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


5 


I  want  to  express  my  admiration  for  the  thousands  of  decent 
and  honestly  conducted  newspapers  in  the  country  that  are 
steadily  and  conscientiously  furnishing  the  public  with  reliable 
news  and  accurate  information  and  are  intelligently  commenting 
upon  and  fairly  discussing  public  questions  and  the  conduct  of 
public  men.  They  are  doing  a  grand  work  and  they  are  a  leading, 
creative  and  constructive  force  in  carrying  forward  the  cause  of 
good  government  and  advancing  the  progress  and  civilization  of 
the  world.  But  on  the  other  hand  I  have  nothing  but  contempt 
for  the  sensational,  muck-rake  newspapers  and  magazines  which 
for  the  most  part  are  echoes  of  ignorance,  vehicles  of  malice,  and 
manufacturers  of  falsehoods.  They  are  the  corrupters  of  the 
public  mind,  the  debauchers  of  public  morals  and  the  destroyers 
of  business  prosperity.  They  are  a  disgrace  to  the  profession  and 
a  curse  to  the  age  and  to  humanity. 

Is  mankind  advancing?  In  science,  in  discovery,  in  invention, 
in  benevolence  and  in  charity,  yes.  In  literature  and  in  states- 
manship, emphatically  No !  The  classical  literature  of  the  past 
is  succeeded  by  the  trashy  literature  of  the  present  and  as  for 
statesmanship,  where  are  the  American  Washingtons,  Hamiltons, 
Websters  and  Lincolns?    They  live  oiily  in  the  memory  of  man. 

The  Duty  of  an  Editor 

T  want  to  say  a  few  words  in  regard  to  what  I  conceive  to  be 
the  duty  of  an  editor.  There  is  a  wide  difference  of  opinion  on 
this  subject. 

In  these  days  of  commercialism,  in  these  days  of  large  circula- 
tion obtained  by  catering  to  sensationalism,  the  general  and  per- 
haps the  popular  view  relative  to  the  conducting  of  a  newspaper 
is  that  it  should  be  conducted  on  a  strictly  commercial  basis. 
This  seems  to  be  a  tendency  of  che  times  and  it  is  a  most  dan- 
gerous tendency.  It  is  a  tendency  which  if  not  checked  will 
eventually  result  in  the  demoralization  of  society  and  the  ruin  of 
the  Republic.  When  the  public  press  substitutes  cash  for  ideals  of 
unselfish  service  to  the  public  and  when  it  prostitutes  patriotism 
for  circulation,  the  Republic  is  on  the  edge  of  chaos  and  red- 
handed  anarchy  lurks  just  around  the  corner. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  wish  to  impress  upon  you  the  im- 
portance of  giving  this  subject  serious  consideration.    We,  as 


6 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


editors,  should  look  higher  than  the  cash  register  and  should 
remember  our  obligations  to  our  country  and  to  humanity.  We 
cannot  escape  the  responsibility  of  our  position.  We  are  either  the 
informers  or  the  misinformers  of  the  people.  We  are  the  mould- 
ers of  public  opinion  to  a  greater  extent  than  we  often  realize. 
It  is  this  fact  that  should  make  us  pause  and  think  seriously  of 
our  responsibility  and  our  duty. 

So  far  as  I  can  see  the  editor  who  conducts  his  newspaper 
solely  for  the  money  there  is  in  it  places  himself  on  the  same  low 
level  as  the  political  boss  who  goes  into  politics  for  the  express 
purpose  of  ''working  for  his  own  pocket  book  all  the  time.'' 
There  is  no  difference  and  there  can  be  no  moral  distinction  be- 
tween the  purely  commercial  editor  and  the  purely  commercial 
politician.  And  yet  it  often  happens  that  it  is  the  commercial 
editor  who  cries  out  the  loudest  against  the  commercial  politician. 
In  fact,  his  cry  against  the  political  boss  is  nine  times  out  of  ten 
inspired  by  his  own  ambition  to  take  the  place  of  the  boss.  The 
volume  and  intensity  of  his  cry  is  a  reflection  of  his  own  mind 
and  betrays  his  purpose.  His  attack  is  usually  made  upon  the  com- 
mercial politician  because  he  sees  a  prospect  of  the  politician  se- 
curing the  very  graft  that  he  is  after.  This  is  the  reason  that  the 
commercial  editor  becomes  so  excited.  You  can  always  get  a 
line  on  the  intensity  of  his  appetite  for  graft  by  the  noise  he 
makes  and  the  same  things  is  true  relative  to  the  political  dema- 
gogue. They  are  two  of  a  kind.  They  are  the  twin  brothers  of 
the  commercial  political  boss. 

The  commercial  editor,  the  commercial  political  boss  and  the 
office-seeking  demagogue  are  the  trinity  of  evils  that  menace  the 
stability  of  our  institutions  and  threaten  the  overthrow  of  the 
Republic. 

I  am  glad  to  find  in  a  speech  delivered  by  Melville  E.  Stone, 
the  able  manager  of  the  Associated  Press,  my  own  sentiments  on 
this  subject  clearly  and  admirably  expressed.  In  his  speech  de- 
livered at  the  Columbia  School  of  Journalism,  Mr.  Stone  said: 

Finally  by  the  adoption  of  the  first  amendment  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution it  was  provided  that  there  should  never  be  anything  done  to 
abridge  the  freedom  of  speech  or  the  freedom  of  the  press  in  this 
country. 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


7 


Our  fathers  at  the  beginning  recognized  thus  early  how  essential 
this  right  of  speech  and  right  of  printing  was  to  our  American  liberty. 
But  it  carries  with  it  a  reciprocal  responsibility  which  if  we  be  at  all 
fair  minded,  we  must  recognize.  A  distinguished  Russian  has  spoken 
of  the  despotism  of  the  printed  phrase — and  it  is  undeniably  true  that 
a  thing  in  print  is  far  more  pregnant  of  possibilities  than  the  same 
thing  in  ordinary  speech — *'To  us,  men  have  committed  much,  and  of 
us  they  will  ask  the  more."  We  are  bound  to  do  something  more  than 
to  print  and  sell  newspapers  for  profit.  We  owe  a  duty  to  our  country, 
which  is  larger  than  that  we  owe  to  our  counting  rooms,  and  this  I 
conceive  to  be  the  first  lesson  which  should  and  ought  to  be  taught 
to  anyone  having  in  mind  the  pursuit  of  this  business  of  American 
journalism.  If  we  are  to  do  nothing  more  than  to  furnish  mere  enter- 
tainment for  the  public,  then  we  fall  to  the  level  of  the  lowest  pan- 
derer. 

It  is  refreshing  to  read  these  sentiments  expressed  by  the 
head  of  one  of  the  greatest  newsgathering  bureaus  in  the  world. 
It  gives  us  hope  that  the  time  is  at  hand  for  a  reaction  to  set  in 
against  the  mad  craze  for  sensationalism  and  commercialism. 
This  hope  is  increased  by  the  stirring  appeal  made  by  Mr.  Stone 
to  the  publishers  of  the  country  to  banish  from  their  columns, 
as  far  as  possible,  sensational  news.  He  quotes  approvingly 
from  an  address  delivered  by  Fisher  Ames,  one  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary fathers,  as  follows : 

Every  horrid  story  in  a  newspaper  produces  a  shock;  but,  after 
some  time,  this  shock  lessens.  At  length,  such  stories  are  so  far  from 
giving  pain  that  they  rather  raise  curiosity  and  we  desire  nothing  so 
much  as  the  particulars  of  terrible  tragedies. 

Now,  Messrs.  Printers,  I  pray  the  whole  honorable  craft  to  banish 
as  many  murders  and  horrid  accidents,  and  monstrous  births,  and 
prodigies  from  their  gazettes  as  their  readers  will  permit  them,  and 
by  degrees  to  coax  them  back  to  contemplate  life  and  manners;  to 
consider  common  events  with  some  common  sense;  and  to  study 
nature  where  she  can  be  known,  rather  than  in  those  of  her  ways 
where  she  really  is,  or  is  represented  to  be  inexplicable. 

Strange  events  are  facts,  and  as  such  should  be  mentioned  but  with 
brevity  and  in  a  cursory  manner.  They  afford  no  ground  for  popular 
reasoning  or  instructions;  and,  therefore,  the  horrid  details  that  make 
each  particular  hair  stiffen  and  stand  upright  on  the  reader's  head 


8 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


ought  not  to  be  given.  In  short,  they  must  be  mentioned;  but  sensible 
printers  and  sensible  readers  will  think  that  way  of  mentioning  them 
the  best  that  impresses  them  least  on  the  public  attention,  and  that 
hurries  them  on  the  most  swiftly  to  be  forgotten. 

In  commenting  upon  this,  Mr.  Stone  says : 
I  am  impressed  that  this  address  could  have  been  delivered  with 
greater  profit  in  this  very  hour. 

Mr.  Stone  then  goes  on  to  say  that  the  American  people 
are  ''news  mad."  He  might  have  added  that  many  of  the  news- 
papers are  scandal  crazy.  He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
editors  of  today  do  not  compare  with  the  editors  of  70  years 
ago,  that  many  of  them  when  they  have  filled  their  columns  with 
a  mass  of  the  details  of  sensational  news  sit  back  with  self-com- 
placency and  imagine  they  are  masters  of  the  craft.  And  then 
he  adds : 

The  self-constituted  leaders  and  enlighteners  of  the  people — what 
are  they  doing?  Standing  still,  lost  in  self-admiration,  while  the  hosts 
march  by?  Are  they  even  doing  as  well  as  that?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that 
the  editors  of  seventy  years  ago  were,  as  a  rule,  better  informed  in 
law,  politics,  government  and  history  than  those  of  today?  The 
statesmen  and  lawyers  and  political  students  who  used  to  do  editorial 
work  for  ambition  or  intellectual  pleasure  have  ceased  to  frequent  the 
newspaper  offices. 

Mr.  Stone  tells  the  exact  truth  and  I  advise  every  editor  of 
this  country  to  procure  a  copy  of  his  admirable  address  and  read 
it  carefully.  He  realizes,  as  every  thoughtful  student  of  history 
must  realize,  that  we  are  headed  for  the  political  insane  asylum 
largely  due  to  the  misinformation  furnished  the  public  by  editors 
of  newspapers.  One  of  the  chief  assets  of  the  sensational  news- 
paper is  the  self -exploiting  political  demagogue.  He  keeps  the 
first  page  supplied  with  headlines.  The  greatest  circulation 
boomers  are  the  criminaL  and  the  political  demagogues. 

It  is  the  editor's  duty  to  study  and  investigate  all  important 
questions  which  relate  to  the  improvement  of  conditions  and  the 
welfare  of  his  country.  It  is  his  duty  to  make  the  study  and  re- 
search necessary  to  obtain  accurate  information  on  such  ques- 
tions and  then  give  that  information  to  the  people  without  fear 
or  favor.    The  editor  should  be  the  real  teacher,  the  true  edu- 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


9 


cator.  He  should  inform  and  enlighten  his  own  mind  so  that 
he  can  inform  and  enlighten  the  people.  When  he  has  arrived 
at  a  conclusion  that  he  believes  to  be  right,  he  should  announce 
that  conclusion  without  reeard  to  consequences.  Tf  he  does  not 
do  so  he  is  not  honest  with  himself  and  he  is  not  honest  with  the 
public  for  he  cheats  the  people  out  of  the  benefit  of  his  honest 
judgment  v;hich  it  is  their  right  to  have. 

The  editor  who  has  not  the  courage  to  challenge  and  fight 
uninformed  clamour  is  not  worth  a  fig  to  his  profession  or  to 
his  country.  It  is  his  duty  to  follow  the  example  of  the  true 
statesman  and  point  out  the  mistakes  and  errors  of  the  multitude 
and  give  the  people  the  truth,  give  them  correct  information  when 
he  sees  they  are  acting  on  false  information.  If  he  does  not  do  so 
he  is  not  the  friend  of  the  people  for  he  is  not  honest  with  them 
and  he  places  himself  on  a  level  with  the  political  demagogue. 
If  the  editor  pursues  this  course,  however,  he  will  make  enemies. 
But  it  is  his  duty  to  make  enemies.  It  is  his  duty  to  make  friends 
and  enemies  and  to  have  them  both  strong  and  both  selected  He 
cannot  fight  the  battle  of  the  right  without  making  enemies  of 
those  who  are  fighting  the  battle  of  the  wrong.  He  must  either 
fight  wrong  or  compromise  with  it.  A  brazen  falsehood  and  a 
timid  truth  are  the  parents  of  compromise. 

Public  Sentiment 

We  hear  a  great  deal  in  these  days  about  public  sentiment. 
Everybody  is  afraid  of  public  sentiment.  It  is  public  sentiment 
that  makes  cowards  of  us  all  and  yet  there  is  not  one  man  in  ten 
thousand  who  has  any  correct  idea  of  what  public  sentiment 
really  is. 

This  is  the  reason  we  are  all  the  time  having  legislation  and 
conducting  the  government  on  what  the  people  do  not  know 
instead  of  on  what  their  representatives  do  know.  This  is  what 
is  constantly  clogging  the  machinery  of  government  with  ignor- 
ance and  incompetency.  It  is  this  everLsting  craze  to  bow  down, 
worship  and  follow  public  sentiment  without  regard  to  whether 
the  sentiment  is  informed,  uninformed  or  misinformed;  without 
any  regard  to  whether  the  sentiment  is  right  or  wrong,  which  has 
resulted  in  filling  our  statute  books  with  abortive  laws  and  is 
creating  a  deplorable  situation  in  which  the  hands  and  feet  of  the 


10 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


people  are  being  tied  with  red  tape,  their  pocket  books  are  being 
robbed  by  additional  taxation  and  prosperous  business  concerns 
are  being  choked  to  death  by  fool  legislation. 

How  can  we  have  intelligent  legislation  and  good  govern- 
ment in  response  to  uninformed  or  misinformed  sentiment?  We 
can  only  have  good  legislation  and  good  government  by  acting  on 
correct  information  in  response  to  informed,  enlightened  public 
sentiment.  This  is  exactly  what  we  are  not  doing.  We  are 
substituting  the  noise  of  clamour  for  the  light  of  reason.  The 
time  has  come  when  we  must  begin  to  discriminate  between  in- 
formed and  uninformed  public  sentiment,  between  true  and  false 
public  sentiment,  if  we  ever  expect  to  improve  conditions  and 
secure  intelligent  legislation  and  good  government. 

The  unfortunate  part  of  the  situation  is  that  nearly  all  poli- 
ticians are  cowards  and  many  public  men  are  slaves  to  their  own 
selfish  ambitions.  They  are  like  the  Missouri  Congressman  who 
said: 

I  find  it  a  great  deal  easier  to  do  wrong  than  to  explain  to  my 
constituents  why  I  did  right. 

The  greatest  evil  in  public  life  is  cowardice.  We  are  having 
government  by  cov/ardly  weathercocks.  All  you  have  to  do  is 
to  make  a  little  noise  and  you  can,  at  any  time,  send  the  cowardly 
politicians  and  the  timid  public  officers  scurrying  to  the  cyclone 
cellar.  The  editors  of  yellow  journals  have  discovered  this  and  so 
they  manage  to  create  the  noise  and  then  they  drive  the  cowardly 
representatives  of  the  people  in  any  direction  they  want  them  to 
go.  This  explains  why  we  are  having  legislation  and  govern- 
ment in  response  to  ignorant  headlines.  The  guidance  of  the 
intelligent,  experienced  and  patriotic  statesman  has  been  cast 
aside  for  the  guidance  of  the  ignorant  editor,  whose  only  qualifi- 
cation to  lead  is  the  fact  that  he  possesses  a  keen  nose  for  scandal, 
bright  eyes  for  headlines  and  ears  attuned  only  to  noise. 

The  question  is,  what  is  public  sentiment?  Is  it  the  ignorant, 
unreasoning  clamour  of  the  street  inspired  by  sensational  head- 
lines? Or  is  it  that  wide,  well  informed,  intelligent,  sane  senti- 
ment inspired  by  knowledge  which  pervades  every  community 
and  modestly  declines  to  express  itself  upon  the  street  through 
the  ever  open  mouth  of  credulity? 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


11 


There  is  a  vast  difference  between  healthy,  informed,  en- 
lightened public  sentiment  and  curious,  ignorant,  public  clamour. 
The  first  is  like  heaven's  refreshing  rain  and  life-giving  sun- 
shine ;  the  second  is  like  earth's  dust  and  refuse  in  a  whirlwind. 
This  difference,  however,  will  never  be  discovered  by  cowardly 
politicians  and  office  seeking  demagogues  whose  sole  ambition  it 
is  to  take  care  of  themselves  at  the  public  expense.  They  are 
ready  to  be  blown  in  any  direction  by  every  passing  breeze.  They 
are  ready  to  enter  any  port  that  will  insure  them  temporary 
safety. 

One  man  with  an  empty  head  and  a  loose  tongue  talking  on 
the  streets  will  make  more  noise  and  more  apparent  public  senti- 
ment than  500  sane,  intelligent,  thinking  citizens  who  do  not 
agree  with  him  but  remain  silent. 

Burke  expressed  this  idea  beautifully  when  he  said : 

Because  half  a  dozen  grasshoppers  under  a  fern  make  the  field 
ring  with  their  importunate  chink,  while  thousands  of  great  cattle 
reposed  beneath  the  shadow  of  the  British  oak,  chew  the  cud  and  are 
silent,  pray  do  not  imagine  that  those  who  make  the  noise  are  the 
only  inhabitants  of  the  field. 

We  are  apt  to  mistake  uninformed  surface  clamour  for  en- 
lightened public  sentiment.  The  false  clamour  of  today  becomes 
the  passing  vapor  of  tomorrow.  Clamour  is  based  upon  error, 
emotion  and  hysteria,  while  true  public  sentiment  is  based  upon 
accurate  information,  ripe  deliberation  and  intelligent  reflection. 
The  question  is  which  kind  of  sentiment  should  guide  and  control 
our  legislation  and  government? 

We  are  now  passing  through  a  transition  period.  We  are 
in  the  throes  of  a  bloodless  revolution.  It  is  at  such  times  as 
this  when  the  demagogues  flock  to  the  front  and  become  the  tem- 
porary leaders  of  the  people.    It  has  been  so  in  all  history. 

When  the  people  are  excited;  when  they  are  easily  swayed 
by  passion,  it  is  the  political  demagogue  who  comes  forth  and 
swears  that  their  ignorance  is  wisdom  and  that  their  prejudice 
is  patriotism.  Not  because  he  loves  the  people  but  because  he 
loves  position  and  power  and  is  willing  to  deceive  and  fool  the 
people  in  order  to  obtain  a  public  office  even  if  he  is  obliged  to 
sacrifice  his  manhood  by  advocating  measures  against  his  own 
honest  convictions. 


12 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


It  is  fortunate  for  the  world  that  statesmen  are  cast  in  a 
different  mould.  In  times  of  excitement  and  hysteria  it  is  only 
the  statesman  who  stands  erect.  It  is  he  who  refuses  to  kneel. 
It  is  he  who  expresses  his  honest  thoughts.  It  is  he  who  points 
out  the  errors  and  mistakes  of  the  multitude  and  tries  to  educate 
and  enlighten  the  people  by  telling  them  the  truth.  Not  because 
he  loves  himself  but  because  he  loves  and  serves  the  right  and 
because  he  is  the  real  friend  of  the  people  and  insists  on  serving 
their  true  interests  even  against  their  will.  Clamour  may  threaten 
him,  the  ignorant  may  denounce  him,  the  yellow  journals  may  at- 
tack him,  but  the  statesman,  the  real  reformer,  cannot  be  driven 
from  conviction's  field. 

The  patriotic  statesman  is  always  patient  and  long  suffering. 
He  can  afford  to  wait.    He  knows  that  passion  will  cool,  that  , 
clamour  will  pass  away,  that  ignorance  will  be  swept  aside  by  { 
increasing  knowledge  and  that  in  the  end  enlightened  public  senti- 
ment  will  prevail. 

When  that  time  comes,  as  it  surely  will  come  and  as  it  always 
has  come,  he  knows  that  his  position  will  be  vindicated  and  that 
upon  his  brow  will  be  placed  the  laurel  wreath  while  the  cow- 
ardly demagogues  who  cringe  and  crawl  and  who  sacrifice  their 
honest  convictions  upon  the  altar  of  fear  and  misrepresent  the 
real  interests  of  the  people  to  obtain  an  ofifice  will  finally  be  driven 
back  to  private  life  by  the  whip  of  public  scorn. 

Speaking  of  two  ancient  demagogues,  Aristotle  said : 

Both  of  these  persons  were  subsequently  condemned  to  death; 
for  the  people,  even  if  they  are  deceived  for  a  time,  in  the  end  gen- 
erally come  to  detest  those  who  beguile  them  into  an  unworthy  action. 

The  Menace  of  Socialism 

We  are  living  in  a  very  large  world  filled  to  overflowing  with 
all  kinds  of  conflicting  theories  and  it  is  no  easy  task  for  any 
man  to  pick  out  the  true  from  the  false,  the  sound  from  the  un- 
sound. It  requires  patient  study,  thorough  investigation  and 
endless  x"esearch  to  arrive  at  correct  conclusions  on  important 
public  and  governmental  questions. 

One  of  the  most  attractive  and  at  the  same  time  one  of  the 
most  dangerous  doctrines  of  our  time  and  one  that  is  fast  be- 
coming popular  is  the  theory  of  Socialism.     It  is  a  plausible 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


i; 


theory.  It  is  a  seductive  theory  because  it  appeals  to  our  senti 
ment  instead  of  our  sense,  to  our  emotion  instead  of  our  reason 
and  this  accounts  for  its  wide  popularity. 

The  theory  of  Socialism  reduced  to  the  last  analysis  means 
that  the  individual  exists  for  the  state  and  not  the  state  for  the 
individual.  In  other  words  that  the  passengers  exist  for  the  sake 
of  the  ship  and  not  the  ship  for  the  sake  of  the  passengers. 
Therefore,  Socialists  contend  that  the  interest  of  the  individual 
must  be  sunk  in  the  interest  of  the  community  This  theory  is 
based  on  the  sophism  that  you  can  raise  up  and  improve  man- 
kind in  the  mass,  when  the  fact  is  you  can  only  raise  up  and  im- 
prove the  mass  by  first  elevating  and  improving  the  individuals 
who  compose  the  mass.  The  theory  of  Socialism  if  put  into 
operation  would  result  in  an  intolerable  form  of  slavery.  Each 
individual  would  be  the  slave  of  the  state  which  in  the  end  would 
mean  that  each  individual  would  be  the  slave  of  the  politicians 
who  controlled  the  state.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  under  So- 
cialism we  would  have  exactly  the  same  human  nature  to  deal 
with  and  exactly  the  same  people  to  deal  with  that  we  have  now. 
The  trouble  with  Socialism  is  that  by  submerging  the  individual 
in  the  community  it  would  destroy  ambition,  kill  individual 
initiative  and  result  in  the  fossilization  of  society. 

Socialism  without  the  introduction  into  it  of  absolute  state 
authority  would  result  in  chaos  and  anarchy  and  with  such  au- 
thority it  would  be  the  most  damnable  kind  of  slavery. 

As  Lord  Acton  has  well  said : 

Under  Democratic  Socialism  what  the  slave  is  in  the  hands  of 
his  master,  the  individual  citizen  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  com- 
munity. 

The  whole  aim  of  Socialism  is  to  take  the  tools  of  production 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  competent  who  are  now  successfully 
directing  the  work  of  production  and  put  them  in  the  hands  of 
the  incompetent.  Civic  chaos,  political  anarchy  and  industrial 
bedlam  would  be  the  result. 

We  are  fond  of  saying  that  all  men  are  created  free  and 
equal,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  only  two  periods  in  life 
when  men  are  equal.  The  first  is  when  they  enter  this  world 
throup-h  the  g"ntf^  of  ei'ernitv  and  "h^  ^ccr^^^H      v,-h-^'^  'hi  v  l^^rr/e 


14 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


this  world  through  the  same  gate.  Between  the  two  eternities 
all  men  are  unequal  because  nature  has  made  them  so. 

Nature  distributes  her  gifts  with  a  secret  and  subtle  hand 
and  we  can  no  more  change  nature's  distribution  of  talent,  wis- 
dom and  virtue  by  law  than  we  can  change  her  distribution  of 
physical  form  and  beauty. 

There  is  equal  voice  only  among  the  dumb; 

Equal  minds  only  among  the  fools ; 

Equal  success  only  among  the  failures, 

And  equal  strength  only  among  the  dead. 

All  that  any  man  can  ask  of  the  government  is  to  give  him 
equal  protection  and  equal  opportunity  and  then  his  success  or 
failure  will  depend  upon  himself. 

Representative  vs.  Direct  Democracy 

A  pure  or  direct  democracy  is  one  in  which  the  people  try  to 
administer  the  government  directly  themselves  without  the  aid  of 
any  secondary  means.  The  result  is  government  by  collective 
ignorance  characterized  by  noise  and  disorder.  This  was  the  form 
of  democracy  that  led  to  the  ruin  of  all  the  ancient  Republics. 

A  representative  democracy  is  one  in  which  the  people  con- 
duct the  government  through  chosen  representatives  selected  on 
accoimt  of  their  ability  and  fitness  to  do  the  particular  thing  the 
ipeople  want  done.  The  result  is  government  by  selected  intelli- 
gence characterized  by  maturity,  stability  and  order.  This  is  the 
[form  of  democracy  that  has  made  America  the  greatest  nation  in 
'the  civilized  world. 

I  wish  right  here  to  call  your  attention  to  the  diflference 
between  the  people's  will  and  the  people's  way.  The  people's 
will  should  prevail.  But  how  should  it  prevail?  Should  it 
prevail  through  channels  of  intelligence  and  order  or  through 
channels  of  ignorance  and  disorder.  This  is  the  important  point 
and  it  constitutes  the  difference  between  a  representative  democ- 
racy and  a  pure  democracy. 

A  pure  democracy  means  government  through  the  channels  of 
ignorance  and  disorder.  A  representative  democracy  means 
government  through  the  channels  of  intelligence  and  order. 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


15 


Let  me  illustrate  the  difference  between  the  people's  will  and 
the  people's  way.  Suppose  you  should  will  to  build  a  house.  Let 
us  suppose  you  want  a  new  house  and  you  have  the  money  to  pay 
for  it.  Your  will  should  prevail.  But  how,  directly  or  indirectly? 
Can  you  build  the  house  yourself?  Not  by  any  means.  The 
first  thing  you  must  do  is  to  secure  an  architect  to  draw  the  plans 
and  specifications  to  carry  out  your  will.  Do  you  not  see  that 
your  will  is  one  thing  and  your  way  is  another?  You  cannot  draw 
the  plans,  not  because  you  are  not  intelligent,  but  because  you 
have  not  studied  that  particular  branch  of  science  and  have  not 
the  necessary  information  on  the  subject.  Therefore  you  must 
employ  a  representative  to  act  for  you  who  has  the  technical 
knowledge  to  carry  your  will  into  effect.  In  order  to  build  your 
house  according  to  the  plans  and  specifications  you  must  then 
hire  as  your  representatives  carpenters,  masons,  plumbers  and 
decorators.  In  other  words,  if  you  want  a  good  house  you  must 
act  through  representatives  who  have  the  necessary  information 
and  technical  knowledge  to  build  a  good  house. 

Well,  the  people,  if  they  want  good  government,  must  do 
exactly  the  same  thing.  They  must  employ  as  representatives 
intelligent  and  capable  men.  They  cannot  act  for  themselves  in 
conducting  legislation  and  government  any  more  than  you  can 
act  for  yourself  in  building  a  house.  If  an  individual  cannot  act 
directly  for  himself  in  carrying  out  his  will,  it  is  simply  impos- 
sible for  the  public  to  do  so. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  mass  initiative,  mass  thought  and 
mass  action.  All  initiative,  thought  and  action  must  be  individual. 
It  is  impossible  for  the  public  to  initiate  anything.  It  can  only 
endorse  or  condemn  proposals  initiated  by  individuals  or  repre- 
sentatives. Therefore  the  fundamental  idea  of  a  pure  or  direct 
democracy  is  a  phantom  of  the  mind. 

It  was  the  discovery  of  these  facts,  after  a  long  and  bloody 
struggle  through  history  in  which  direct  democracies,  time  and 
again,  degenerated  convulsively  into  monarchies  that  resulted  in 
giving  birth  to  the  American  system  of  representative  democracy. 

The  fathers  of  the  Republic  had  all  the  experience  and  wis- 
dom of  the  ages  to  guide  them  when  they  framed  our  federal 
constitution  and  founded  this  Republic  and  their  work  was  the 


16 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


greatest  governmental  achievement  of  enlightened  statesman- 
ship in  any  age  and  a  great  forward  step  in  the  advancement  of 
civilization.  The  statesmen  of  the  Revolutionary  period  knew 
that  a  pure  or  direct  democracy  had  proved  a  failure  in  all  his- 
tory. 

They  knew  that  the  ancients  had  never  discovered  a  workable 
system  of  government  between  the  extremes  of  a  pure  democracy 
which  was  a  failure  and  an  aristocracy  or  a  monarchy,  both  of 
which  curtailed  individual  liberty  and  deprived  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  of  a  controlling  voice  in  the  affairs  of  their  govern- 
ment. 

They  knew  that  an  aristocracy  and  a  monarchy  had  stability 
and  reliability  but  was  a  tyranny,  and  so  they  aimed  to  found  a 
government  which  had  all  the  good  features  of  a  democracy, 
which  left  the  final  control  of  the  government  in  the  hands  of  the 
people,  but  which  at  the  same  time  possessed  the  efficiency  and 
stability  of  a  monarchy,  and  so  they  planned  to  make  the  people 
themselves  the  monarch,  with  certain  necessary  checks,  balances 
and  limitations,  the  same  to  be  fixed  in  a  written  constitution. 
They  accomplished  this  result  by  engrafting  representation  upon 
democracy. 

This  was  a  new  form  of  government  unknown  to  the  ancients 
and  the  fathers  of  the  Republic  were  the  first  practical  exponents 
of  a  perfected  system  of  representative  democracy.  They  were 
a  galaxy  of  the  greatest  statesmen  ever  assembled  at  a  given  time 
to  frame  a  constitution  and  found  a  government. 

Gladstone  summed  up  the  verdict  of  enlightened  statesman- 
ship on  their  work  when  he  said: 

The  American  Constitution  is  the  most  wonderful  work  ever 
struck  off  at  a  given  time  by  the  brain  and  purpose  of  man. 

In  his  recent  work,  "The  State  and  the  Citizen,"  Lord  Sel- 
borne  points  out  the  superiority  of  the  American  Constitution 
over  all  others  by  reason  of  its  stability  and  permanence  and  then 
he  says : 

But  in  England  we  remain  without  definite  safeguards  in  our  Con- 
stitution.   The  gravest  of  our  constitutional  laws  can  be  altered  as 


I 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


17 


easily  as  the  dog  tax,  while  much  of  the  Constitution  is  so  uncertain 
and  indefinite  that  there  is  the  strongest  temptation  for  politicians  to 
change  it  at  any  moment  of  political  excitement. 

The  statesmen  of  the  Revokitionary  period  understood  all 
about  this  old  system  of  a  pure  democracy  which  is  now  brought 
forward  as  a  new  form  of  government  and  as  a  panacea  for  all 
our  ills. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  remarks  of  just  one  states- 
man upon  this  subject.  In  the  debate  in  ihe  Massachusetts  Siace 
Convention  which  ratified  the  federal  constitution,  Fisher  Ames, 
one  of  the  greatest  statesmen  of  the  Revolutionary  period  who  in 
his  time  was  called  the  ''Burke  of  America,"  said: 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  people  divesting  themselves  of 
power,  vvhen  they  delegate  it  to  representatives;  and  that  all  repre- 
sentation is  to  their  disadvantage,  because  it  is  but  an  image,  a  copy, 
fainter  and  more  imperfect  than  the  original,  the  people,  in  whom  the 
light  of  pov/er  is  primary  and  unborrowed,  which  is  only  reflected  by 
their  delegates. 

I  cannot  agree  to  either  of  these  opinions.  The  representation  of 
the  people  is  something  more  than  the  people.  I  know,  sir,  but  one 
purpose  which  the  people  can  effect  without  delegation,  and  that  is  to 
destroy  a  government.  That  they  cannot  erect  a  government,  is 
evinced  by  our  being  assembled  here  on  their  behalf.  The  people 
must  govern  by  a  majority,  with  whom  all  power  resides.  But  how 
is  the  sense  of  this  majority  to  be  obtained.  It  has  been  said  that  a 
pure  democracy  is  the  best  government  for  a  small  people  who  as- 
semble in  person.  It  is  of  small  consequence  to  discuss  it,  as  it  would 
be  inapplicable  to  the  great  country  we  inhabit.  It  may  be  of  some 
use  in  this  argument,  however,  to  consider,  that  it  would  be  very 
burdensome,  subject  to  faction  and  violence;  decisions  v/ould  often 
be  made  by  surprise,  in  the  precipitancy  of  passion,  by  men  who 
either  understand  nothing  or  care  nothing  about  the  subject:  or  by 
interested  men,  or  those  who  vote  for  their  own  indemnity.  It  would 
be  a  government  not  by  laws,  but  by  men. 

Such  were  the  paltry  democracies  of  Greece  and  Asia  Minor,  so 
much  extolled,  and  so  often  proposed  as  a  model  for  our  imitation.  I 
desire  to  be  thankful  that  our  people  are  not  under  any  temptation  to 
adopt  the  advice.  I  think  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the  people  are 
gainers  by  the  election  of  representatives.    They  may  destroy,  but 


18 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


they  cannot  exercise,  the  powers  of  government  in  person,  but  by 
thir  servants  they  govern;  they  do  not  renounce  their  power;  they  do 
not  sacrifice  their  rights;  they  become  the  true  sovereigns  of  the 
country  when  they  delegate  that  power,  which  they  cannot  use  them- 
selves to  their  trustees. 

In  discussing  the  importance  of  constitutional  representative 
government  to  protect  the  rights  of  individuals  and  the  rights  of 
the  minority,  Ames  said: 

I  know,  sir,  that  the  people  talk  about  the  liberty  of  nature,  and 
assert  that  we  divest  ourselves  of  a  portion  of  it  when  we  enter  into 
society.  This  is  declamation  against  matter  of  fact.  We  cannot  live 
without  society;  and  as  to  liberty,  how  can  I  be  said  to  enjoy  that 
which  another  may  take  from  me  when  he  pleases?  The  liberty  of 
one  depends  not  so  much  on  the  removal  of  all  restraint  from  him,  as 
on  the  due  restraint  upon  the  liberties  of  others.  Without  such  re- 
straint, there  can  be  no  liberty. 

Lord  Acton,  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  all  time,  has  well 
said : 

The  most  certain  test  by  which  we  judge  whether  a  country  is 
really  free  is  the  amount  of  security  enjoyed  by  minorities. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  fact  which  is  always  over- 
looked by  impractical  political  reformers.  No  constitutional 
provision,  no  law,  no  system  of  primaries  will  ever  help  the 
people  to  secure  good  government  unless  they  use  the  election 
machinery  provided.  They  must  themselves  be  responsible  for 
the  election  of  honest,  intelligent  and  fit  representatives.  Such 
representatives  can  only  be  selected  when  the  people  take  a  suffi- 
cient interest  in  politics  to  obtain  reliable  and  accurate  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  the  qualifications  of  candidates.  They  must 
first  ascertain  the  fitness  of  candidates  for  the  duties  they  will  be 
called  upon  to  discharge  and  then  they  must  supplement  this  with 
sufficient  energy  and  activity  to  go  to  the  primaries  and  vote  for 
the  best  candidates.  This  process  of  selecting  candidates  can 
be  operated  better  under  the  open  caucus  and  convention  system 
than  under  any  other  system  ever  invented  by  the  wit  of  man. 
Not  only  this  but  it  can  be  operated  at  a  much  less  expense  to 
both  the  candidates  and  the  people. 

The  only  way  the  people  can  secure  good  government  is  by 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


19 


taking  enough  interest  in  politics  and  public  affairs  to  correctly 
inform  themselves  relative  to  the  ability  and  fitness  of  candidates. 
In  addition  to  this  they  must  have  the  energy  and  civic  zeal  to 
go  to  the  primaries  and  select  such  candidates  for  public  office. 
This  is  all  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  people  to  do  under  our 
enlightened  representative  system  to  secure  the  best  results  and 
obtain  the  best  government. 

But  if  the  people  will  not  do  this,  if  they  are  indifferent,  if 
they  are  absorbed  in  their  own  private  affairs  and  neglect  their 
civic  duties  and  allow  inefficient  and  incompetent  men  to  be  nom- 
inated and  elected  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  system  but  it  is  the 
fault  of  the  people  themselves.  You  cannot  remedy  this  fault  in 
the  people  by  destroying  their  government.  You  cannot  remedy 
this  fault  in  the  people  by  breaking  do  vn  our  enlightened  system 
of  representative  democracy.  Those  who  are  trying  to  do  this 
are  the  architects  of  disaster.  Their  scheme  of  a  pure  or 
direct  democracy  has  been  a  failure  in  all  history.  It  is  a  political 
fallacy  that  has  deluged  the  earth  with  blood.  The  advocates  of 
this  doctrine  make  the  absurd  contention  that  the  only  way  to 
secure  good  government  is  to  go  out  upon  the  streets,  collect 
hungry  ignorance  and  set  it  upon  the  throne.  Could  anything  be 
more  ridiculous  or  absurd? 

The  advocates  of  this  system  may  be  divided  into  three  classes : 

First,  political  novices ;  second,  crack-brained  political  the- 
orists ;  third,  office-seeking  demagogues. 

The  first  two  classes  are  entitled  to  our  sympathy,  the  latter 
class  should  have  our  contempt.  Their  whole  aim  is  to  flatter 
ignorance  in  order  to  secure  its  support  for  public  office,  believ- 
ing that  it  is  in  the  majority.  They  may  be  right  from  a  selfish 
standpoint  but  they  are  traitors  to  American  institutions  and  to 
our  enlightened  representative  democracy  which  is  the  best  sys- 
tem of  government  ever  instituted  among  men. 

What  this  country  needs  is  education  in  the  fundamental 
principles  of  government.  The  people  have  had  no  education 
upon  this  subject  since  the  Civil  War.  But  few  statesmen  in  the 
country  have  read  the  American  Constitution  in  the  past  twenty- 
five  years.  There  has  been  no  occasion  for  it  until  recently.  Not 
until  1892  was  there  any  man  or  set  of  men  in  this  country  who 
had  the  audacity  to  attack  the  virtues  of  our  representative  de- 


20 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


mocracy.  The  first  attack  was  made  in  1892  by  the  National 
Sociahst  Labor  party  in  its  platform  in  the  following  words: 

First  Demand:  The  people  to  have  the  right  to  propose  laws  and 
vote  upon  all  measures  of  importance  according  to  the  referendum 
principle. 

In  this  election  Simon  Wing,  the  Socialist  labor  candidate  for 
president,  received  in  the  whole  country  in  round  numbers,  21,000 
votes. 

The  next  attack  made  upon  our  system  of  government  w^as 
made  in  the  national  platform  of  the  Populist  party  in  1896,  as 
follows : 

We  favor  the  system  of  direct  legislation  through  the  initiative 
and  referendum. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Populist  or  People's  party,  now 
defunct,  endorsed  Bryan's  candidacy  for  president  in  1896  and  he 
accepted  the  nomination  upon  that  platform.  He  saw  in  the 
revival  of  this  old  discarded  system  of  a  pure  democracy  an 
opportunity  to  flatter  and  fool  the  people.  He  immediately 
seized  upon  it  and  set  up  the  cry,  'T.et  the  people  rule  "  He  at 
once  became  the  imitator  and  echo  of  the  demagogues  of  the  an- 
cient democracies.  Since  that  time  there  has  been  a  spirited 
rivalry  between  the  demagogues  of  all  parties  to  see  who  could 
go  the  farthest  towards  breaking  down  our  representative  democ- 
racy and  reviving  the  old  discarded  form  of  mobocracy. 

It  was  William  Jennings  Bryan,  the  original  ''big  noise,'' 
(Roosevelt  is  the  carbon  copy)  who  declared  that  this  system  of 
government  was  the  divine  method  of  restoring  the  rule  of  the 
people.  Since  that  time  the  political  skirt-dancers  of  all  parties 
have  been  parrot-like  repeating  the  refrain  until  it  became  the 
chief  slogan  of  the  Big  Bull  Moose  at  Armageddon. 

From  whence  came  this  cry,  ''Let  the  people  rule."  It  orig- 
inated in  the  breast  of  our  primitive  ancestors.  The  first  Simian 
hypocrite  who  amused  himself  swinging  on  his  tail  in  the  branches 
of  trees  was  the  first  demagogue  who  set  up  this  cry,  and  it  has 
been  the  favorite  slogan  of  ofiice-seeking  demagogues  and  gal- 
lery-playing hypocrites  in  all  ages.  It  is  the  first  subterfuge  of  the 
office-seeker  and  the  last  refuge  of  the  bankrupt  politician. 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


21 


If  we  want  to  learn  about  a  pure  or  direct  democracy  we  must 
go  back  to  ancient  times — back  to  the  Athenian  democracy.  If 
we  want  to  know  the  truth  about  it  we  must  turn  our  attention 
from  the  cheap  demagogues  of  our  day  and  go  back  and  study 
a  pure  democracy  in  the  light  of  history.  Aristotle  has  given  us 
a  vivid  picture  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  democracies. 

Athens  was  the  pride  and  glory  of  the  ancient  world.  She 
excelled  in  education,  culture,  art  and  literature,  and  was  the 
intellectual  center  of  the  world.  But,  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
Athens  was  a  small  city,  and  when  she  was  at  the  zenith  of  her 
power  and  fame  she  was  flourishing  under  the  middle  deliber- 
ative forms  of  democracy  described  by  z\ristotle.  When  she 
threw  ofif  the  restrait  of  constitution  and  of  law,  and  substituted 
in  their  place  passion,  noise,  confusion  and  hysteria  and  was  led 
by  demagogues  her  decline  and  ruin  rapidly  followed.  When  she 
had  a  deliberative  form  of  democracy  and  followed  the  lead  of 
such  statesmen  as  Pericles  and  when  the  masses  were  swayed  by 
his  superior  intelligence,  judgment  and  statesmanship  then  Athens 
flourished,  because  Pericles  was  her  great  and  trusted  representa- 
tive. But  what  happened  to  Athens  when  Pericles  and  statesmen 
of  his  character  were  relegated  to  the  rear,  as  we  are  now  rele- 
gating statesmen  to  the  rear,  when  the  demagogues  of  Athens 
came  forward,  as  the  demagogues  in  this  country  are  now  coming 
forward?  Her  prosperity  was  blighted,  her  intellectual  light  was 
extinguished,  her  glory  faded  into  a  memory. 

Under  the  Athenian  pure  democracy  the  people  killed  their 
best  and  most  successful  generals,  they  plundered  the  rich  until 
the  rich  were  compelled  to  conspire  with  the  public  enemy,  and 
they  finally  crowned  their  guilt  with  the  martyrdom  of  Socrates. 
It  was  John  Jay,  who  speaking  of  a  pure  democracy,  said: 

If  every  Athenian  citizen  had  been  a  Socrates,  every  Athenian 
assembly  would  still  have  been  a  mob. 

The  most  famous  recall  case  in  history  was  when  the  mob 
recalled  the  decision  of  Pilate  and  forced  the  crucifixion  of 
Christ. 

What  is  the  mob?  When  passion  wrests  the  scepter  from 
reason  the  people  become  the  mob.  When  reason  is  restored  the 
mob  again  becomes  the  people. 


22 


PRESIDENTIAL  ADDRESS 


The  fathers  of  this  Republic  invented  representative  govern- 
ment to  put  reason  upon  the  throne  and  keep  it  there.  Their  wis- 
dom and  statesmanship  has  never  been  excelled. 

So  long  as  we  have  manhood  suffrage,  so  long  as  we  balance 
the  head  of  the  illiterate  against  the  head  of  the  intelligent  and 
educated,  so  long  as  we  balance  the  head  of  the  fool  against  the 
head  of  the  political  sage  and  philosopher,  so  long  as  we  balance 
the  head  of  the  criminal  against  the  head  of  the  minister  of  the 
gospel,  so  long  as  we  balance  the  empty  head  of  the  boy  of 
twenty-one  against  the  head  of  the  trained  statesman  with  half  a 
century  of  accumulated  experience  and  wisdom,  just  so  long 
must  we  have  legislation  and  government  by  representatives — by 
representatives  chosen  on  account  of  their  experience,  character 
and  ability,  as  well  as  their  training,  fitness  and  skill  for  the  par- 
ticular duties  which  they  will  be  called  upon  to  perform.  These 
representatives  must  be  selected  by  the  masses,  who,  if  it  were 
not  physically  impossible  for  them  to  assemble  and  act  for  them- 
selves, which  it  is,  have  neither  the  training,  the  knowledge  or 
the  capacity,  to  engage  in  the  complicated  and  technical  conduct 
of  the  details  of  legislation  and  of  government. 

Let  us  make  no  mistake  about  it.  This  country  is  facing  the 
greatest  crisis  since  the  Civil  War.  Our  representative  institu- 
tions are  in  danger.  Masked  treason  is  striking  at  the  heart  of 
our  federal  constitution.  The  recall  of  judicial  decisions  is  the 
most  dangerous  proposal  presented  in  this  country  since  secession 
reared  its  ugly  head  to  dismember  the  Union.  It  is  a  treacherous 
blow  at  the  heart  of  our  institutions.  It  threatens  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  judiciary.  Its  whole  aim  is  the  destruction  of 
that  citadel  of  liberty.  After  destroying  the  judicial  establish- 
ment it  is  then  proposed  to  make  the  confusion  of  the  multitude 
the  final  interpreter  of  the  law  and  the  passion  of  the  populace  the 
final  arbiter  of  justice.  No  more  ridiculous  and  dangerous  pro- 
posal ever  emanated  from  a  demented  ambition  since  civilization 
banished  political  barbarism. 

In  the  present  crisis  it  is  just  as  important  that  every  patriot 
should  respond  to  the  defense  of  our  representative  institutions 
and  fight  for  the  preservation  of  our  constitution  as  it  was  for 
them  to  rush  to  the  defense  of  the  Union  when  it  was  attacked 
by  secession  and  treason.    The  danger  of  the  present  is  as  great 


STATE  PRESS  CONVENTION 


23 


as  the  danger  of  the  past.  It  is  not  so  apparent  to  the  average 
citizen,  but  it  is  just  as  apparent  to  the  student  of  history.  It 
will  require  all  the  intelligence,  the  patience  and  the  wisdom  of 
the  American  people  together  with  the  highest  statesmanship  of 
our  country  to  solve  the  great  problems  which  now  confront  us. 

Government  founded  on  law,  order,  and  progress  will  be 
supported  by  every  patriot,  but  government  by  hysteria,  tumult 
and  anarchy  will  be  supported  by  every  office-seeking  demagogue. 
The  demand  of  the  hour  is : 

"God  give  us  men;  a  time  like  this  demands 

Strong  minds,  great  hearts,  true  faith  and  ready  hands; 

Men  whom  the  lust  of  office  does  not  kill; 

Men  whom  the  spoils  of  office  cannot  buy; 

Men  who  possess  opinions  and  a  will; 

Men  who  have  honor — men  who  will  not  lie; 

Men  who  can  stand  before  a  demagogue. 

And  damn  his  treacherous  flatteries  without  winking! 

Tall  men,  sun-crowned,  who  live  above  the  fog 

In  public  duty  and  in  private  thinking." 


INPIVmUALISM 


The 

Solution 

of  our 

Economic 
Problems 


JOSEPH  JORDAN  DEVNEY 


Price 

25 
Cents 


INDIVIDUALISM 


THE  SOLUTION 

OF  OUR 

ECONOMIC  PROBLEMS 


By  JOSEPH  JORDAN  DEVNEY 


Published  by 
The  Individualist  Publishing  Company 


'HERE  must  be  for 


which  is  the  best.  *** 


It  is  the  order  which  ought 
to  exist  for  the  greatest 
happiness  of  the  human  race. 
God  knows  it,  and  desires  its 
adoption.  It  is  for  man  to 
discover  and  establish  it." — 
Laveleye. 


Copyright,  1912,  by 
JOSEPH  JORDAN  DEVNEY 
Cleveland 
International  copyright  secured 


Introdudion 


The  more  we  learn  of  the  ancients,  the  greater  our  respect 
for  their  abihty  and  the  firmer  our  conviction  that  there  is  '*nothing 
new  under  the  sun." 

After  having  conceived  the  idea  outlined  in  this  booklet 
and  concluded  after  months  of  theorizing  and  study  of  modern 
conditions  that  it  was  the  real  solution  of  our  economic  problems, 
I  began  to  search  history  for  support  and  had  the  extreme  satis- 
faction of  discovering  that  it  had  proven  strikingly  effective  in 
numerous  instances  in  Greece  and  Rome  in  correcting  conditions 
not  dissimilar  to  our  own.  It  was  indeed  a  source  of  encourage- 
ment to  learn  that  the  principle  had  the  endorsement  of  such  men 
as  Solon,  Plato,  Aristotle,  Pliny,  Livy,  and  numerous  others 
whose  achievements  were  such  that  their  fame  has  withstood  the 
ravages  of  2,000  years. 

I  have  left  the  main  text  little  influenced  by  historical  re- 
searches, preferring  to  argue  the  validity  of  the  principle  by  con- 
sidering modern  conditions  as  far  as  possible,  leaving  the  weight 
of  history  as  a  fitting  close. 

This  booklet,  having  been  written  in  spare  time  snatched 
from  a  life  in  which  the  struggle  for  the  material  is  by  no  means 
an  incidental  factor  in  these  days  of  *'the  high  cost  of  living,*' 
lacks  both  finish  and  development.  But  the  germ  at  least  is  here, 
and  if  it  should  meet  with  a  sufficiently  encouraging  reception  as 
to  suggest  an  **encore/*  the  shortcomings  can  to  some  extent  be 
overcome  in  a  later  edition. 


Contents 


Page 


Introduction    __   3 

Synopsis   5 

Causes  of  Present  Conditions   8 

What  of  the  Future?    21 

Solutions  Offered     24 

THE  Solution     ..36 

Results  of  Individualism  39 

Objections  Anticipated  and  Answered  48 

Justice  of  the  Principle   -__56 

Program  for  Materializing     59 

The  Testimony  of  History   __   63 

Application  for  Membership    67 


Synopsis 

CONDITION:  It  is  generally  admitted  that  our  present 
economic  state  of  affairs  is  by  no  means  satisfactory. 

CAUSE:  There  is  too  great  a  disparity  in  the  distribution 
of  wealth.  Men  being  unequal  in  their  ability  to  accumulate 
riches,  and  no  limit  having  been  placed  on  the  amount  which  any 
individual  may  acquire,  some  have  been  able  to  amass  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  wealth,  while  others,  less  capable 
and  less  fortunate,  are  forced  to  struggle  with  poverty.  Some 
men,  therefore,  have  too  much  wealth  while  others  have  not 
enough. 

SOLUTION:  Limit  each  individual  to  as  much  commer- 
cial property  as  will  insure  him  or  her  all  of  the  necessaries  of 
life,  and  at  least  a  reasonable  amount  of  legitimate  luxuries. 

In  our  country  and  time  I  proj)ose  $100,000  for  each  man, 
woman  and  child  as  the  amount  which  would  amply  provide 
these.  This  would  permit  a  family  consisting  of  a  father,  mother 
and  eight  children  to  own  one  million  dollars*  worth  of  commer- 
cial property. 

In  addition  to  restricting  each  individual  to  that  amount  of 
commercial  property,  I  would  permit  each  to  have  an  unlimited 
amount  of  non-commercial  property,  such  as  a  home,  food,  fuel, 
clothing,  jewelry,  furniture,  art,  horses,  automobiles,  etc. 

MEANS  OF  ACCOMPLISHING:  By  forming  a  So- 
ciety to  (a)  demonstrate  the  justice  of  the  principle  and  induce  as 
many  as  possible  to  carry  out  its  spirit  voluntarily;  (b)  induce 
employers  of  labor  to  share  profits  with  their  employees  on  a  merit 
basis  without  any  features  which  smack  of  peonage ;  (c)  promote 
the  enactment  of  income  and  inheritance  tax  laws  and  other  laws 
which  will  tend  to  prevent  further  centralization  of  wealth,  and 


(d)  ultimately  secure  such  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution 
as  will  give  the  people  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to  dispose  of 
their  surplus,  and  at  the  expiration  of  that  time  require  the  gov- 
ernment to  take  the  surplus  from  any  who  had  not  complied,  put 
it  into  the  National  Treasury,  use  it  for  current  expenses,  thus 
reducing  taxes  and  giving  everyone  the  benefit. 

RESULT:  By  thus  limiting  each  individual,  the  less  for- 
tunate and  capable  would  be  able  to  acquire  sufficient  to  live  in 
decency  and  comfort  as  becomes  human  beings,  which  hundreds 
of  thousands  are  unable  to  do  today.  At  the  same  time,  it  would 
work  injustice  to  no  one,  the  maximum  allowed  being  sufficient 
for  any  individual,  as  will  be  demonstrated  later. 

NAME:  This  proposed  system  of  economics  is  called  "In- 
dividualism.'* The  name  originally  suggested  itself  as  the  solution 
both  in  theory  and  practice  is  diametrically  opposed  to  Socialism. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  communistic  about  it.  Each  person 
would  be  put  on  his  individual  merits.  No  one  would  get  any- 
thing for  which  he  did  not  work;  but  those  who  did  work  would 
be  able  to  reap  just  rewards  from  their  labors. 

Sft       9^  Sfi 

WEIGH  THE  EVIDENCE.— It  would  be  too  much  to 
expect  any  but  those  who  may  have  been  thinking  along  the  same 
lines  to  admit  at  once  that  the  solution  proposed  is  sound,  effective 
and  not  too  radical  to  be  practical,  and  that  the  results  as  stated 
would  follow  its  adoption.  Therefore,  unless  you  have  given  this 
plan  exhaustive  consideration,  it  is  not  asking  too  much  to  request 
that  you  read  the  arguments  pro  and  con  and  then  draw  your  con- 
clusion. 

Suppose  twenty  years  ago  some  one  had  said  to  you, 
**Thompson,  I  have  been  studying  aeronautics  a  long  time  and 
have  constructed  a  machine  in  which  I  can  ride  through  the  air," 
or  **I  have  invented  an  instrument  by  which  I  can  telegraph  a 
thousand  miles  without  the  aid  of  wires,"  or  **I  have  invented  a 
vehicle  which,  with  proper  development,  will  propel  itself  1 00  miles 
an  hour."    You  probably  would  have  doubted  him  and  even 


laughed  at  him.  And  yet  all  these  things  have  become  realities 
and  are  now  commonplace.  So  don't  decry  this  solution  without 
a  hearing.  It  is  a  simple  remedy,  and  yet  too  far-reaching  to  be 
grasped  from  a  few  paragraphs. 

I  now  propose  to  show  what  caused  some  of  the  conditions 
which  exist,  offer  my  solution  of  them  in  detail  and  endeavor  to 
prove  conclusively  that  its  adoption  would  result  in  a  radical  im- 
provement of  conditions. 


Causes  of  Present  Conditions 

Avarice  has  been  characteristic  of  the  human  race  from  the 
beginning.  In  all  ages  there  have  been  certain  people  possessed 
with  an  insatiable  greed  to  accumulate  as  much  wealth  as  possible 
by  any  methods.  The  failure  of  society  to  limit  individual  accu- 
mulations has  lead  to  the  ruination  of  nations  as  well  as  individuals. 
Aristotle  says,  * 'Inequality  is  the  source  of  all  revolutions."  Au- 
gust Boeckh,  in  his  exhaustive  work  on  the  Political  Economy  of 
Athenians,  declares  that  war  between  the  rich  and  the  poor  de- 
stroyed Greece.  Pliny,  Varro,  Mace,  Laveleye  and  numerous 
other  writers,  both  ancient  and  modern,  testify  that  the  unequal  dis- 
tribution of  wealth  was  the  cause  of  the  ruin  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire. 

And  look  at  the  world  today.  Mexico  in  revolt  because 
sixteen  millions  of  people  are  working  for  a  few  hundred  land- 
owners. Ireland  just  emerging  from  300  years  of  oppression  and 
intolerable  conditions,  because  a  few  men  owned  the  land  and 
five  million  worked  to  support  them.  England  and  Russia  and 
Italy  and  other  nations,  including  our  own  United  States,  are 
suffering  from  the  unequal  distribution  of  wealth. 

History  is  simply  repeating  itself,  and  until  society  lessens  the 
breach  between  the  prince  and  the  pauper  by  restricting  individuals 
to  a  certain  amount  of  wealth,  history  is  going  to  continue  to  re- 
peat itself.    The  rise  and  fall  of  nations  will  go  on  as  before. 

Three  causes  have  contributed  to  permit  the  centralization  of 
wealth  in  this  country  probably  with  greater  rapidity  than  in  any 
other  at  any  time.    They  are  as  follows: 

(1)  NATURAL  RESOURCES.— Being  a  compara- 
tively new  nation  with  almost  unlimited  natural  resources,  wealth 
has  been  produced  with  marvelous  rapidity,  and  those  who  have 


been  able  to  monopolize  the  means  of  production  have  been  able  to 
acquire  the  lion's  share  of  it.  Think  of  the  vast  fortunes  which  have 
been  made  out  of  oil,  gas,  iron  ore,  coal,  copper,  silver,  gold  and 
other  valuable  deposits  w^hich  the  Creator  spent  ages  to  put  in 
Nature's  store  house  for  the  benefit  of  ALL  mankind. 

(2)  IMPROVED  MACHINERY.— Wonderfully  im- 
proved machinery  has  displaced  manual  labor  and  enabled  those 
in  control  of  it  to  reap  the  benefits  which  formerly  were  distributed 
among  many.  Here  is  just  one  instance  in  the  iron  industry  which 
I  mention  as  I  happen  to  be  personally  familiar  with  it:  In  1900, 
870  men,  were  employed  on  the  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  docks  at  Ash- 
tabula, Ohio,  to  handle  about  2,500,000  tons  of  ore  during  the 
season.  A  few  years  ago,  machinery  was  installed  to  take  the 
place  of  labor,  and  in  1911  nearly  twice  as  much  ore  was  handled 
by  about  250  men.  Therefore,  one  man  in  1911  was  able  to  do 
as  much  as  seven  men  did  eleven  years  before.  And  the  increase 
in  wages  of  those  still  employed  is  scarcely  sufficient  to  offset  the 
higher  cost  of  living. 

The  600  men  who  were  thus  displaced  had  to  seek  employ- 
ment elsewhere  and  compete  with  laborers  in  other  lines.  They 
received  no  benefits  of  the  improvements — these  went  to  the  cap- 
italists. 

We  would  not  have  the  world  stand  still,  we  want  improve- 
ments and  progress,  but  there  can  be  no  real  progress  unless  it  af- 
fects all  the  people  favorably.  There  is  certainly  something  vitally 
wrong  with  that  system  of  wealth  distribution  which  results  in 
inventions  and  improvements  enriching  a  few  while  taking  away 
the  means  of  livelihood  from  many. 

Our  much  boasted  progress  becomes  a  travesty  when  upon 
analyzing  we  find  that  we  have  been  very  apt  in  devising 
schemes  to  save  labor,  but  have  not  taken  the  precaution  to  insure 
that  humanity  as  a  whole  shall  be  benefited  thereby.  Under  such 
a  system,  improvements  and  labor-saving  devices  make  for  retro- 
gression in  the  conditions  of  humanity. 

(3)  CORPORATIONS.— The  other  m.eans  which  has 


permitted  the  rapid  centralization  of  wealth  is  the  development  of 
corporations,  through  which  many  strong  men  have  been  able  to 
unite  their  brains  and  energies  and  co-operate  to  their  own  ad- 
vantage and  to  the  disadvantage  of  others. 

Corporations  probably  have  been  the  most  powerful  agent 
in  the  centralization  of  wealth.  They  have  enabled  a  few  men 
to  prevent  a  just  and  equitable  distribution  of  the  natural  resources 
of  the  country  and  the  benefits  of  improved  machinery.  I  shall, 
therefore,  discuss  them  at  length  for  these  reasons,  and  for  most 
important  of  all,  that  by  limiting  private  ownership  they  can  be 
utilized  to  aid  working  out  the  economic  salvation  of  ALL  the 
people. 

FORMER  BUSINESS  METHODS.— Until  a  half  cen- 
tury or  so  ago,  it  was  usually  customary  for  men  to  engage  in 
business  as  individuals  or  partners.  Death  was  the  leveler  which 
helped  to  keep  wealth  distributed.  A  man  might  make  a  million 
dollars  or  several  millions,  his  son  might  preserve  the  fortune  in- 
tact and  even  increase  it,  but  some  place  along  the  chain  of  de- 
scendants a  weak  link  would  be  struck,  disintegration  would  take 
place  and  the  fortune  would  be  dissipated  and  distributed. 

ADVENT  OF  CORPORATIONS.— When  corpora- 
tions came  into  vogue  conditions  changed.  An  artificial  person 
with  perpetual  life,  created  by  law,  replaced  the  individual,  and 
death  was  no  longer  the  balance  wheel  of  wealth. 

In  the  first  place,  it  requires  several  persons  to  incorporate 
a  company,  and  in  large  enterprises  there  are  usually  several 
strong  men  in  control.  If  one  dies,  the  corporation  does  not  dis- 
solve as  in  the  case  of  a  partnership;  the  stock  of  the  deceased 
simply  passes  to  other  persons,  and  usually  some  one  who  has  been 
active  in  the  affairs  of  the  company  steps  into  the  vacated  place. 
Then,  with  the  assistance  of  the  other  cogs  in  the  wheel,  the  busi- 
ness goes  on  as  before,  increasing  or  diminishing  according  to  the 
relative  ability  of  the  new  personnel  in  charge.  Thus  a  corpora- 
tion has  far  greater  assurance  of  continuing  its  existence  and  be- 


coming  a  powerful  factor  in  its  particular  field  than  has  an  indi- 
vidual. 

Because  of  the  numerous  advantages  of  doing  business 
through  corporations,  they  have  become  so  popular,  that  now 
practically  all  business,  both  large  and  small,  is  conducted  through 
them. 

BIRTH  OF  TRUSTS.— Trusts  were  the  natural  out- 
growth of  corporations.  Men  found  that  individual  firms  operating 
in  the  same  field  could  combine  their  interests  in  one  large  corpora- 
tion and  by  stifling  competition  and  gaining  control  of  the  means 
of  production  in  that  line,  far  greater  profits  could  be  made. 

After  a  few  such  combinations  were  formed,  those  operating 
in  other  lines  were  quick  to  grasp  the  advantages  to  be  secured  by 
combining  interests  in  their  respective  lines,  and  trusts,  or  com- 
binations, were  formed  so  rapidly  that  today  there  are  few  ave- 
nues of  commerce  or  industry  which  are  not  under  their  control. 

The  legitimate  advantages  of  corporations  are  numerous,  but 
because  of  their  artificial  nature,  they  offer  to  unscrupulous  men 
means  of  doing  many  unjust  acts  which  individuals  cannot  do. 
Among  these  are  the  following: 

WATERED  STOCK.— One  of  the  evils  which  can  be 
committed  through  corporations  is  to  filch  money  from  people 
through  watered  stock.  For  example,  it  is  a  matter  of  common 
knowledge  that  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  n>orth  of  water  was 
poured  into  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  when  it  was 
formed.  Mr.  Carnegie  admitted  to  the  Stanley  Investigating  Com- 
mittee that  the  Carnegie  Co.  was  watered  even  on  the  basis 
of  its  earnings  when  an  option  was  given  on  it  in  1 898  for  $320,- 
000,000.  Yet  two  and  a  half  years  later  this  was  sold  to  the 
United  States  Seel  Corporation  for  $420,000,000.  Mr.  Car- 
negie even  said  he  understood  later  that  he  could  have  secured  an- 
other $100,000,000  if  he  had  asked.  The  Commissioner  of 
Corporations  valued  the  ore  lands  secured  by  the  corporation  at 
$100,000,000,  yet  the  steel  trust  put  them  in  at  $700,000,- 
000.    The  owner  of  a  mill  in  Ohio  purchased  bv  the  steel  trust 


told  me  personally  that  he  was  paid  three  times  what  it  was  worth. 
From  these  facts  and  other  evidence  extant  it  seems  conservative 
to  say  that  this  trust  was  watered  to  the  extent  of  at  least  $800,- 
000.000. 

Alfred  Henry  Lewis,  in  the  April,  1912,  edition  of  The 
World  To-Day,  gives  a  few  other  conspicuous  examples  of 
watered  stock.    He  says: 

**The  tobacco  trust,  formed  upon  an  aggregate  plant  value 
of  less  than  $500,000,  issued  stocks  and  bonds  for  $25,000,000. 
The  Georgia  Central  Railroad  possessed  an  actual  investment 
value  of  $3,500,000.  Morganization  watered'  it  to  $52,000,- 
000.  The  ship  trust  based  its  bond  and  stock  issues  of  $71 .000,- 
000  upon  properties  not  worth  $5,000,000.  The  street  railways 
of  Manhattan  Island  show  bond  and  stock  issues  aggregating 
$375,000,000.  They  cost— new— under  $75,000,000.  The 
steel  trust,  in  a  recent  year,  supported  a  bond  and  stock  situation, 
the  gold-brick  total  of  which  was  $1,436,722,135.  Four-fifths 
was  'water.'  The  story  of  any  one  of  these  gold  bricks  is  the  story 
of  the  sugar  gold  brick  and  those  one  thousand  and  one  other  gold 
bricks,  which  the  Grand  Central  Petes  and  Hungry  Joes  of  Wall 
Street  are  handing  mankind  every  day. 

**In  the  old  Red  Sea  pirate  times.  Kidd.  Avery,  Singleton 
and  their  black  flag  fellows  found  harborage  on  the  Madagascar 
coast.  New  Jersey — Trenton — has  been  for  two  decades  the 
Madagascar  of  the  trusts.  In  one  year  at  the  Trenton  yards,  pi- 
rate companies  were  launched  with  a  total  bond  and  stock  issue 
of  more  than  $6,000,000,000.  Only  $500,000,000  of  this 
was  honestly  founded;  the  balance  ($5,500,000,000)  was  over- 
capitalization— 'water' — gold  bricks." 

FREEZING  OUT  STOCKHOLDERS.— After  making 
millions  by  unloading  watered  stock  onto  the  people,  the  morgan- 
izers  have  another  pet  scheme  for  getting  back  that  same  stock  at 
a  much  lower  price  than  they  sold  it  to  them.  Through  manipula- 
tion in  the  stock  markets,  the  market  value  of  the  stock  is  ham- 
mered down  far  below  the  price  it  has  been  sold  to  the  people. 
Accepting  as  truth  the  lies  told  about  the  conditions  of  their  com- 
pany, many  of  those  not  on  the  "inside"  believe  their  stock  to  be 
worth  no  more  than  the  market  quotation  and  they  sell.  This 


stock  is  bought  by  the  manipulators  who  sold  it  to  them  in  the  first 
place  at  a  high  price,  and  who  now  have  pulled  off  the  infamous 
deal  to  freeze  them  out.  It  is  the  rich  who  are  on  the  **inside" 
and  win,  and  usually  the  middle  classes  who  sell  and  are  fleeced. 
Thus  the  breach  between  the  classes  widens. 

Considered  without  a  bit  of  dispassion,  it  is  simply  amazing 
that  the  government  of  ninety  millions  of  people  will  permit  its 
citizens  to  be  buncoed  out  of  billions  of  dollars  by  the  unscrupulous 
means  of  watered  stock  and  the  freeze-out. 

CRIMINAL  PUNISHMENT  AVOIDABLE.— Cor- 
porations offer  a  bulwark  behind  which  men  can  commit  felonies 
with  impunity  which  they  could  not  do  as  individuals.  They  may 
break  laws  and  be  punished  only  with  fines  which  they  can  well 
afford  to  pay. 

DEBAUCHING  THE  GOVERNMENT.— Through 
malicious  "business  practices"  such  as  those  just  described,  the 
trust  promoters  are  able  to  become  so  rich  and  powerful  that  they 
even  make  the  government  itself  serve  to  still  further  plunder  the 
people — and  they  get  away  with  it.  They  secure  the  nomination 
and  election  of  as  many  favorable  legislators  as  they  can,  and 
bribe  a  sufficient  number  more  to  pass  laws  which  will  enable  them 
to  do  what  they  desire  and  still  "keep  within  the  law";  they  se- 
cure the  passage  of  tariff  and  other  laws  which  enable  them  to 
make  hundreds  of  millions  at  the  expense  of  the  people;  they  se- 
cure the  election  or  appointment  of  judges  who  will  render  de- 
cisions favorable  to  them;  they  secure  the  election  of  as  many 
executives  as  possible  who  will  not  enforce  the  laws  against  them. 

THE  TWO-EDGED  SWORD.— Aside  from  debauch- 
ing the  government  and  exploiting  the  people  out  of  billions  of 
dollars  through  watered  stock  and  tricky  stock  juggling,  the  trusts 
have  two  other  effective  methods  of  exploitation  which  are  so  far- 
reaching  that  they  can  with  one  or  the  other,  and  in  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  cases  with  both,  make  every  man,  woman  and 
child  pay  tribute  to  them. 

The  theorv  of  trusts,  as  advertised  by  their  promoters,  is 


beautiful.  It  is  claimed  that  by  combining  kindred  interests,  goods 
can  be  produced  and  sold  more  cheaply,  hence  monopolies  are 
good  for  the  people.  But  the  actual  practice  of  the  trusts  is  the 
worst  possible  thing  for  the  people.  The  trusts  wield  a  two-edged 
sword,  the  sharp  sting  of  which  few  escape.  They  cut  down 
wages  on  one  side  to  cheapen  the  cost  of  production,  and  raise 
the  selling  prices  on  their  commodities.  Instead  of  the  people  get- 
ting the  benefits  of  the  economy,  they  are  paid  less  for  their  work 
and  charged  more  for  what  they  buy — and  the  trusts  pocket  the 
swag. 

KILLING  COMPETITION.— The  methods  employed 
by  trusts  in  annihilating  competition  are  nothing  short  of  a  public 
scandal.  The  inhuman  deeds  to  which  men  have  stooped  to  take 
advantage  of  their  fellow  men  are  almost  unbelievable.  It  has 
been  a  war  to  the  death  with  no  quarter,  there  has  been  no  restraint 
in  gaining  their  end. 

When  men  are  stirred  to  the  point  that  they  are  willing  to 
lay  down  their  lives  if  necessary  for  a  principle  and  make  war 
upon  each  other,  they  respect  and  observe  a  code  of  rules  in  the 
name  of  humanity.  But  in  the  strife  for  wealth  which  has  taken 
place  in  this  country  during  the  past  thirty  years,  there  has  been 
absolutely  and  positively  NO  restraint  in  the  methods  used.  No 
means  have  been  too  unfair,  no  weapon  has  been  too  inhuman,  no 
deed  has  been  too  foul  in  this  war  of  greed. 

And  when  we  consider  that  this  struggle  was  not  for  any 
principle,  was  not  conducted  for  the  benefit  of  humanity,  but  to 
satisfy  the  lust  of  men  for  gold,  and  that  those  conspired  against 
had  done  nothing  more  offensive  than  to  be  in  business  endeavor- 
ing to  make  a  living,  or  because  they  refused  to  join  in  forming 
monopolies  by  which  wages  could  be  reduced  and  prices  increased, 
it  is  surprising,  to  say  the  least,  that  in  this  enlightened  age  such 
deeds  could  be  perpetrated  with  impunity.  Impunity!  Why,  we 
almost  bend  the  knee  to  these  Captains  of  Infamy. 

And  now  that  these  financial  pirates  have  succeeded  in  elimin- 
atinj?  comoetition  to  a  neclimble  auantitv  and  have  nlarpdjJwn^L. 


selves  in  a  position  where  they  are  making  milHons,  there  are 
people  who  are  willing  to  protect  them  in  their  foully  gotten  gains. 

TRUSTS'  EFFECT  ON  LABOR.— Whenever  a  trust 
gains  control  of  a  large  part  of  any  industry,  among  its  first  steps 
is  to  reduce  the  number  of  employees.  In  many  lines  the  num- 
ber of  workers  who  can  be  eliminated  is  considerable.  For  in- 
stance, under  competition,  in  lines  in  which  it  is  necessary  to  em- 
ploy salesmen,  each  firm  has  a  number  of  men  on  the  road  to 
push  their  particular  brands  of  goods.  When  these  interests  combine 
and  competition  ceases,  a  less  number  of  salesmen  are  required. 
If  the  articles  are  staple,  the  dealers  must  have  them,  and  as  they 
can  buy  only  from  the  trusts  they  will  send  their  orders  direct  in- 
stead of  waiting  to  be  sold  by  salesmen. 

In  many  lines  it  is  not  possible  to  dispense  with  salesmen  al- 
together as  the  trade  must  be  visited  from  time  to  time.  But  where 
competition  is  wholly  or  nearly  eliminated,  it  does  not  require 
high  class  salesmen  to  do  the  work  of  **order  taking,"  so  lower 
priced  men  are  employed.  In  the  industrial  as  well  as  commercial 
lines,  this  policy  is  pursued. 

The  effect  of  throwing  thousands  of  men  out  of  employment 
through  capitalistic  combinations  and  the  introduction  of  improved 
machinery,  results  in  putting  the  working  people  into  keener  com- 
petition with  each  other  to  the  detriment  of  all. 

DESTROYING  LABOR  UNIONS.— After  cutting 
down  the  force  of  employees  as  far  as  possible  and  filling  the  places 
of  those  who  must  be  used  with  as  cheap  men  as  they  can,  the 
next  step,  and  the  one  which  will  receive  particular  attention 
from  now  on,  is  to  reduce  wages  of  employees.  This  has  not 
been  done  to  a  marked  degree  yet  by  the  trusts  as  a  whole 
because  it  has  hardly  been  reached  in  the  evolution.  An  industry 
must  be  almost  entirely  monopolized  before  it  is  wise  or  safe  to 
do  this.  As  yet,  the  trusts  have  not  quite  as  good  a  strangle  hold 
on  the  people  as  they  want.  But  they  are  getting  that  hold  and 
the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  wage  conditions  in  this 
country  are  going  to  be  far  worse  than  they  are  today.    The  trust 


masters  have  demonstrated  that  they  will  stop  at  nothing  to  make 
money. 

Another  reason  the  trusts  have  not  made  greater  reductions  in 
wages  is  that  they  can,  during  the  evolutionary  period,  make  as 
great  profits  as  they  dare  by  increasing  prices  of  their  products. 
The  people  will  not  revolt  so  quickly  at  increased  prices  as  they 
will  at  a  cut  in  wages. 

The  first  preparatory  act  towards  cutting  wages  is  to  destroy 
the  unity  of  the  men.  As  an  organized  force  they  can  fight  a  re- 
duction, but  as  individuals  they  are  helpless — hence  all  unions  are 
throttled  as  fast  as  is  convenient  and  expedient.  This  accomplished 
the  cutting  of  wages  is  then  a  comparatively  easy  process.  The 
fight  lies  between  the  power  of  organized  wealth  on  one  side  and 
single  individuals  on  the  other.  It  is  like  pitting  a  whole  army 
against  a  lone  soldier.    And  the  tragedy  of  it  is,  we  stand  for  it! 

Mr.  Louis  D.  Brandeis  made  this  statement  January  30th, 
1912,  to  the  Stanley  Committee,  appointed  by  Congress  to  in- 
vestigate the  steel  trust: 

**This  is  the  situation  in  regard  to  wages:  As  compared  to 
the  period  to  which  you  refer,  Mr.  Young — that  is,  going  back 
15  or  20  years,  going  back  before  the  elimination  of  the  trade 
union  from  the  Carnegie  plant  at  Homestead — there  has  been  a 
reduction,  and  a  marked  reduction,  in  the  rate  of  wages,  in  the 
actual  rate  of  wages  paid  skilled  labor.  That  varies  according  to 
to  various  kinds  of  labor  from  a  very  slight  percentage  to  as  high 
as  30  or  40  per  cent." 

**The  second  position  is  that  there  has  been  a  constant  ten- 
dency, a  perfectly  natural  tendency,  to  reduce  the  number  of 
skilled  men  relatively  in  the  industry,  so  that  the  men  who  receive 
relatively  high  wages  are  a  very  much  smaller  proportion  of  the 
whole  than  they  were  in  the  20  years  to  which  you  refer." 

HIGH  COST  OF  LIVING.— The  most  powerful  factor 
of  the  many  which  the  trusts  have  for  making  millions  is  through 
the  high  prices  they  are  able  to  command.  They  cannot  sell 
everyone  watered  stock,  nor  bamboozle  everyone  into  disposing 
of  it  for  a  fraction  of  what  it  is  worth;  neither  can  they  reach 


everyone  through  low  wages,  but  they  can  and  do  get  something 
from  every  human  being  in  the  country  who  buys  anything  to  eat, 
wear  or  use  in  his  business,  profession  or  home. 

Aside  from  the  modicum  of  cost  incident  to  deHveries  be- 
cause of  the  advent  of  the  telephone — which  those  who  are  hold- 
ing us  up  endeavor  to  make  the  real  scapegoat  for  present  con- 
ditions— the  high  cost  of  living  is  almost  entirely  due  to  the  trusts 
and  their  far-reaching  influence.  The  price  of  thousands  of  ar- 
ticles have  been  arbitraril})  raised  by  means  of  pools,  combinations, 
secret  agreements  and  other  stealthy  and  unlawful  methods  which 
their  perpetrators  dare  not  commit  openly,  but  which  they  bum 
the  evidence  of,  lie  about  and  even  deny  under  oath. 

Here  is  a  far-reaching  larv.  Arbitrarily  increasing  and 
maintaining  the  price  of  one  important  article  in  any  line  serves  to 
raise  the  price  of  kindred  articles  whether  or  not  they  are  con- 
trolled by  the  trusts,  therefore,  the  trusts  are  not  only  responsible 
for  the  prices  they  raise,  but  for  other  high  prices  as  well.  For 
instance,  the  meat  trust  became  so  strong  that  it  was  able  to  in- 
crease the  price  of  beef  and  pork.  This  naturally  increased  the 
price  of  other  meats  produced  by  farmers  who  were  not  connected 
with  the  trust.  For  example,  if  the  price  of  beef  increased  5  cents 
a  pound,  farmers  saw  that  the  profitable  thing  for  them  to  do  was 
to  produce  beef.  Many  of  them  did  and  there  was  a  shortage  of 
mutton  and  other  meats.  The  law  of  supply  and  demand  then 
increased  the  price  of  these  meats. 

The  general  increase  in  the  price  of  meats  lessened  the  de- 
mand for  them  temporarily,  as  people  turned  more  to  cereals  and 
vegetable  products  for  their  foods.  But  the  farmers  were  now 
raising  stock,  consequently  the  supply  of  earth  productions  being 
smaller  and  the  demand  being  larger,  the  price  of  vegetables  and 
cereals  increased.  Thus  the  original  increase  in  beef  was  alone 
sufficient  to  increase  the  price  of  all  food  stuff.  The  abstinence 
from  meat  was  only  temporary,  and  as  the  packers  controlled 
enough  of  the  supply  to  maintain  the  high  prices,  the  people  finally 


surrendered  to  the  inevitable  and  paid  them — and  they  are  doing 
it  yet. 

These  same  processes  operated  to  increase  the  prices  in  other 
Hnes  in  which  any  main  article  was  controlled  by  a  trust  and  its 
price  arbitrarily  raised. 

In  an  effort  to  make  it  appear  that  high  prices  are  not  the 
result  of  monopoly  methods,  the  trusts  have  coined  the  euphonious 
argument  that  our  trouble  is  not  due  to  the  high  cost  of  living, 
but  to  the  cost  of  high  living.  Let  us  analyse  the  merits  of  this 
statement. 

Some  economists  are  not  willing  to  admit  that  our  standard 
of  living  has  increased  in  the  past  half  century.  Possibly  it  has, 
but  it  certainly  has  not  kept  pace  with  the  increase  of  wealth 
of  the  country  nor  with  the  increased  earning  power  of  the  pro- 
ducers. There  has  been  such  an  unequal  distribution  of  wealth 
that  the  people  at  large  have  not  received  anything  like  their  just 
share  of  the  benefits  of  our  progress,  and  a  continuation  of  this 
inequality  must  inevitably  result  in  a  lowering  of  the  standard  of 
living  of  all  except  the  rich  as  time  goes  on. 

As  a  basis  for  a  standard  of  living  we  must  take  into  con- 
sideration both  the  increase  in  wealth  and  earning  power  of  the 
people. 

In  1850  the  per  capita  wealth  in  the  United  States  was 
$307.  Today  it  is  about  $1,300*  an  increase  of  over  300  per 
cent.  This  certainly  proves  that  we  are  entitled  to  a  much  higher 
standard  than  we  had  60  years  ago. 

Regarding  the  earning  power  of  workers,  everyone  must  ad- 
mit that  improved  machinery  and  methods  have  increased  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  labor  many,  many  fold,  but  wages  have  not  in- 
creased accordingly. 

Let  us  consider  the  best  paid  large  class  of  workers  today, 
the  railroad  men.  They  receive  higher  wages  than  they  did  in 
1850,  but  not  in  proportion  to  the  greater  results  they  are  produc- 
ing. The  invention  of  the  air  brake  reduced  the  number  of  brake- 
men  required,  and  the  larger  engines,  better  road  beds  and  gen- 


eral  equipment  enable  several  times  larger  loads  to  be  drawn.  It 
is  true  the  men  are  working  a  less  number  of  hours,  but  this  is 
offset  by  the  fact  that  their  trains  make  much  better  time  and  they 
have  far  greater  responsibilities.  It  is  also  a  fact  that  freight  rates 
have  dropped,  but  the  volume  of  business  has  increased  many  fold. 
Careful  investigation  seems  to  indicate  that  the  wages  now  received 
have  about  twice  the  purchasing  power,  but  the  men  are  pro- 
ducing twenty-five  times  the  results,  therefore  it  is  patent  that  even 
this  best  paid  class  of  workers  are  not  getting  anything  like  the 
increase  they  should. 

Let  us  consider  a  few  other  lines:  Years  ago  men  carried 
mortar  and  bricks  up  ladders  on  their  shoulders.  Today  that  is 
done  by  machinery  and  one  engineer  will  now  do  as  much  work 
as  several  men  did  formerly.  Sixty  years  ago  letters  were  written 
by  hand.  Now  a  boy  with  a  machine  can  turn  out  thousands  in 
a  day.  A  linotype  operator  can  set  several  times  as  much  type 
as  men  formerly  did  by  hand. 

Farming  implements  have  been  developed  to  the  point  that 
one  man  can  cultivate  a  much  larger  acreage  than  he  was  able 
when  the  work  was  done  by  hand.  Edwin  L.  Barker,  of  the  In- 
ternational Harvester  Company,  claims  that  it  takes  ten  minutes' 
labor  now  to  raise  a  bushel  of  wheat,  but  it  took  five  days'  labor 
to  do  it  2,000  years  ago.  This  is  an  increase  of  over  300  times 
in  efficiency. 

The  advent  of  the  telegraph  and  telephone  and  improved 
postal  service  have  increased  efficiency  of  production  and  the  ex- 
pedition of  business  to  a  wonderful  extent. 

We  have  noted  that  the  introduction  of  ore-handling  machines 
permits  one  man  to  do  as  much  now  as  seven  men  did  eleven  years 
ago,  but  if  we  go  back  to  the  seventies,  when  the  ore  was  wheeled 
out  in  barrows,  we  find  that  one  man  now  can  accomplish  as 
much  as  1  00  men  did  then. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  examples.  Everyone  recognizes 
the  progress  that  has  been  made.  There  is  probably  no  industry  in 
which  improved  machinery,  methods  and  facilities  have  not  at 


least  doubled  the  efficiency  of  producers  and  there  are  some  in 
which  one  person  can  do  more  than  1 00  did  before.  It  is  difficult 
to  get  satisfactory  statistics  on  the  increased  productiveness  among 
all  workers,  but  it  is  certainly  conservative  to  say  that  the  average 
man  produces  five  times  as  much  today  as  he  did  sixty  years  ago. 

In  view  of  this  fact  and  the  fact  that  our  per  capita  wealth 
has  increased  over  300  per  cent,  it  follows  that  if  there  had  been 
a  fair  and  just  distribution  of  wealth,  our  standard  of  living 
should  have  increased  from  300  to  400  per  cent  in  the  past  sixty 
years. 

Dare  even  the  predatory  interests  claim  that  such  is  the 
case?  Certainly  not,  and  their  argument  that  our  trouble  today  is 
due  to  the  cost  of  high  living  rather  than  the  high  cost  of  living 
is  not  valid.  It  is  a  sophism  invented  to  divert  attention  from 
the  real  cause,  which  is  that  the  producers  are  not  getting  their 
just  share  of  what  they  are  earning.  The  distribution  of  wealth 
is  inequitable. 


What  of  the  Future? 


The  savage  never  thinks  of  the  morrow,  the  civilized  do,  and 
when  we  consider  the  present  unfair  conditions  and  unequal  op- 
portunities we  naturally  ask:    **What  of  the  future?" 

When  we  see  a  few  men  at  the  head  of  great  trusts,  in- 
trenched behind  their  fortresses  of  gold,  not  satisfied  with  more 
millions  than  they  or  their  children  or  their  children's  children  can 
need,  still  laying  siege  to  the  people  and  making  them  pay  tribute, 
we  ask:    "What  of  the  future?'* 

When  we  see  men  spurred  on  by  their  insatiable  greed  for 
gold,  corrupting  our  public  officials  that  they  may  * 'legally" 
plunder  the  people  and  keep  out  of  jail,  we  are  forced  to  ask: 
''What  of  the  future?" 

When  we  see  the  incentive  taken  from  young  men  to  go  into 
business,  work  hard  and  build  up  a  profitable  trade  because  they 
feci  that  it  would  be  but  a  few  years  until  some  trust  would 
gobble  up  the  fruits  of  their  sweaty  days  and  sleepless  nights,  we 
ask:    "What  of  the  future?" 

When  we  see  the  business  of  the  wealthiest  nation  on  the 
globe  paralysed,  hundreds  of  thousands  idle,  the  cost  of  living  in- 
creasing, and  the  great  Captains  of  Infamy  daily  laying  plans 
to  widen  still  further  the  financial  breach  between  themselves  and 
the  poor,  we  are  not  acting  as  civilized  beings  unless  we  consider 
seriously  the  future. 

Continuation  of  our  present  system  of  wealth  distribution 
must  make  conditions  worse.  Every  day  the  employees  of  the 
trusts  work,  a  few  millionaires  are  greatly  enriched  and  the  work- 
ers become  relatively  poorer. 

COMBINING  THE  TRUSTS.— The  trusts  are  still  in 
the  eYolutionary  state.    The  next  logical  step  in  centralization 


is  a  combination  of  the  trusts  themselves.  This  is  inevitable  in 
the  evolution  of  the  monopoly  idea.  Unless  something  inter- 
venes, a  combination  will  be  effected  not  many  years  hence  which 
will  result  in  one  great  trust  instead  of  the  present  horde.  Indeed 
it  is  not  impossible  to  conceive  an  international  trust  wielding  a 
world-wide  influence.  When  either  of  these  events  take  place, 
the  solution  will  lay  not  in  the  ballot,  but  in  the  bullet,  and  God 
forbid  that  the  world  should  ever  witness  such  a  spectacle! 

If  present  conditions  continue,  we  can  foresee  a  condition 
not  unlike  that  which  existed  in  the  Roman  Empire  at  the  time 
of  L.  Marcus  Phillipus,  when  2,000  people  owned  all  of  the 
land.  Business  enterprise  and  industry  were  at  a  standstill. 
There  was  little  or  no  work  for  freemen.  In  self  protection  the 
rich  built  great  amphitheaters  like  the  Coliseum  in  order  to  divert 
the  minds  of  the  people  from  their  unjust  condition,  and  they 
fed  them  at  public  expense  to  prevent  a  revolution. 

OLD  AGE  PENSIONS.— History  is  already  repeating 
itself  in  England.  She  is  paying  thousands  of  pounds  annually 
in  old  age  pensions.  That  is  simply  another  form  of  the  pacifica- 
tion measures  used  by  the  Roman  patricians  to  keep  the  plebeians 
from  uprising  against  them.  The  only  difference  is  that  in  Rome 
they  gave  food  direct,  in  England  they  are  giving  money  to  buy 
the  food. 

England  is  doing  a  humane  act  in  taking  care  of  its  poor, 
but  the  old  age  pension  is  no  real  solution.  It  is  paternalism 
which  must  continue  to  breed  paupers.  What  the  people  rvant 
and  ought  to  have  is  not  charity,  hut  a  chance.  Let  England 
or  any  other  nation  enact  laws  enabling  those  willing  to  work 
and  save,  to  receive  a  just  return  for  their  labors,  and  a  nation 
of  thrifty,  independent  citizens  will  grow  up,  few  of  whom 
will  need  charity  from  the  state  or  individuals  when  they  get  old. 
The  poorhouses  will  be  inhabited  only  by  the  lazy  and  unfor- 
tunate— a  few  of  whom  we  will  always  have  to  take  care  of. 
But  even  the  number  of  these  can  be  reduced  by  compulsory 
insurance. 


There  are  thousands  of  beneficiaries  of  England's  paternal- 
ism who  would  be  independent  to-day  if  they  had  received  what 
they  had  earned. 

So  long  as  England  or  any  other  nation  permits  concentra- 
tion of  wealth  beyond  the  danger  line,  so  long  will  she  have  to 
take  care  of  her  people  through  money  taken  from  her  coffers 
or  let  them  starve.  An  English  writer  has  studied  conditions 
in  London  for  years  asserts  that  a  million  people  are  existing 
there  on  less  than  enough  to  buy  the  necessaries  of  life.  Thou- 
sands upon  thousands  have  no  work  at  all  and  are  being  fed  by 
public  and  private  charities.  The  next  step,  as  in  Rome,  is  to 
provide  entertainment  to  divert  their  minds,  and  we  need  not  be 
surprised  to  read  any  day  of  free  moving  picture  shows  being 
established  for  this  purpose. 

England  is  traveling  the  Roman  road.  And  there  are  others 
in  her  wake.  She  is  simply  in  advance  of  us.  We  are  now  ad- 
vocating old  age  pensions.  We  are  now  furnishing  text  books 
free  to  the  poor  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  and  private  charity 
is  feeding  and  clothing  thousands.  Leading  educators  and  others 
are  advocating  that  the  State  provide  free  meals,  free  eyeglasses, 
free  medical  and  dental  care.  Some  even  go  so  far  as  to  advo- 
cate free  street  car  rides  to  and  from  school. 

I  am  in  favor  of  everything  that  will  help  the  children,  I 
certainly  want  to  see  them  well  fed  and  clothed,  and  I  think  the 
State  should  pay  for  medical  inspection  and  insist  that  the  children 
get  the  treatment  they  need.  But  I  am  equally  firm  in  the  belief 
that  the  parents  should  pay  the  bills.  If  a  man  brings  children 
into  the  world  and  will  not  work  to  provide  the  necessaries  of 
life  for  them,  he  ought  to  be  made  to  do  it.  If  he  is  willing  to  work, 
but  can't  get  employment,  then  I  am  in  favor  of  the  State  bearing 
his  burden  till  he  can.  But  we  are  not  the  nation  of  freemen 
we  boast  of  being  unless  we  take  the  necessary  action  to  make 
it  possible  for  every  man  to  earn  a  livelihood  for  himself  and 
family,  and  thus  remove  the  necessity  for  this  paternalism.  Unless 
we  do,  shall  the  State  not  next  be  paying  rent  that  those  children 
may  have  shelter?  And  furnishing  fuel  to  keep  them  warm,  and 
lights  that  they  may  study,  and  who  can  say  where  this  paternal- 
ism would  end? 

The  fact  is  we  are  destined  not  only  to  reach  England's 
stage,  but  to  surpass  it  unless  we  act  and  remove  the  cause  of 
poverty  instead  of  relieving  the  pangs  of  present  hunger.    A  loaf 


of  bread  rvill  satisfy  a  man  today,  but  he  will  need  another  to- 
morrow. Give  him  a  chance  to  earn  that  loaf  today  and  he  can 
buy  it  tomorrow. 


Solutions  Offered 

So  oppressive  have  conditions  become  that  people  on  every 
hand  are  endeavoring  to  solve  the  problem  of  living.  Their 
efforts  are  highly  commendable  and  in  some  cases  they  aid  a 
limited  number  of  people,  but  I  have  yet  to  see  a  solution  offered 
which  its  most  ardent  advocates  can  conscientiously  claim  will 
strike  the  shackles  from  the  economically  enslaved  everywhere. 
The  possible  exception  for  such  a  claim  is  Socialism,  which  will 
be  exposed  in  due  course. 

From  various  sources  comes  the  proposal  to  right  things 
by  fixing  a  minimum  wage  scale  by  law.  Supp)ose  that  were 
done,  what  guarantee  would  a  man  have  that  he  could  get  even 
one  day's  work  in  a  year  at  any  wage?  And  what  assurance 
would  he  have  that  prices  of  food,  clothing  and  shelter  would 
not  increase  in  proportion  to  his  wages? 

THE  STARVATION  METHOD.— There  is  formed 
in  Cleveland  at  one  time  or  another  the  **No-Meat  Club"  or  the 
"Thirty  Cent  Egg  Club,"  the  members  of  which  pledge  them- 
selves to  eat  no  meat  or  eggs  until  the  price  is  reduced.  This 
may  secure  lower  prices  on  these  foods  temporarily,  but  not  per- 
manently. If  the  price  is  reduced,  the  people  begin  to  eat  the 
boycotted  article  again.  The  price  goes  up  to  its  former  level — 
I  or  higher  to  offset  the  loss.  Then  there  must  be  another  abstinence 
to  secure  another  reduction.  But  why  should  the  people  be  re- 
quired to  go  without  meat,  eggs,  or  any  other  food  to  be  able 
to  buy  them  at  a  fair  price? 

ELIMINATING  THE  MIDDLEMAN.— The  Mayor 
of  Indianapolis  buys  potatoes  and  sells  them  direct  to  consumers 
below  the  market  price.  That  helps  a  few  people  save  a  little 
on  potatoes.  But  could  this  system  be  extended  to  include  every- 
K  thing  needed,  it  would  not  guarantee  us  the  opportunity  to  make 


money  to  buy  potatoes  or  anything  else,  no  matter  how  cheap. 
It  would  simply  eliminate  the  middleman  whom  we  need.  We 
are  willing  to  pay  him  a  reasonable  amount  for  service  and  could 
well  afford  to  do  so  if  we  were  getting  a  fair  share  of  what  we 
earned.  But  if  our  unjust  system  of  wealth  distribution  causes 
us  to  eliminate  the  middleman  in  order  to  continue  to  pay  tribute 
to  the  moneyed  interests,  then  we  are  retrograding,  we  are  forced 
back  to  barter  as  in  days  of  old. 

Another  effort  to  get  relief  is  through  co-operative  societies 
which  are  organized  to  buy  food  and  other  necessaries.  These 
at  best  can  only  avoid  in  a  limited  degree  the  middleman's  profit 
and  they  give  no  guarantee  of  an  income.  They  do  not  remove 
the  fundamental  cause  of  the  trouble. 

I  am  for  regulating  the  all  combination  in  restraint  of  trade, 
whether  they  be  formed  by  three  grocers  in  a  village  or  by  a 
score  of  multi-millionaires  in  Wall  street,  who  seek  to  control  the 
world  supply  of  any  commodity.  But  efforts  to  correct  condi- 
tions will  be  futile  if  we  regulate  or  even  eliminate  those  three 
grocers — the  middlemen,  without  controlling  those  higher  up.  The 
latter  in  hundreds  of  cases  already  control  the  source  of  supply, 
and  they  have  themselves  eliminated  thousands  of  independent 
middlemen,  but  we  have  no  relief.  We  will  never  get  relief 
until  we  remove  the  source  of  our  trouble. 

POLITICAL  REFORMS.— The  Initiative,  Referendum, 
Recall,  Short  Ballot,  Commission  Plan  of  Government,  and  sim- 
ilar schemes  are  being  enacted  throughout  the  country.  While 
these  are  for  political  reforms  principally  they  aid  somewhat  in 
economic  reform.  I  believe  in  them,  but  they  certainly  are  not 
sufficient  to  cope  with  the  great  problems  which  confront  us. 
They  are  all  right  as  remedies  for  such  troubles  as  would  in  the 
human  system  correspond  to  boils,  colds,  and  croup,  but  they 
certainly  would  not  cure  organic  troubles  like  heart  disease. 

WOMAN'S  SUFFRAGE.— I  look  upon  the  movement 
for  woman's  suffrage  as  a  protest  against  existing  conditions.  As 
one  of  my  friends  expresses  it,  she  does  not  care  to  vote  but  she 


does  want  an  improvement  in  the  status  of  affairs  so  her  children 
will  have  better  opportunities  than  are  afforded  today.  She  feels 
that  if  men  will  not  take  the  necessary  steps  to  correct  evils  it  is 
incumbent  upon  the  women  to  see  what  they  can  do. 

This  motive  is  certainly  commendable,  and  one  can  have 
no  objection  to  women  voting  provided  that  without  unsexing 
them  it  would  improve  conditions.  I  feel  that  women  could  exer- 
cise the  same  intelligence  in  voting  as  men,  but  I'm  not  persuaded 
that  an  Utopian  condition  would  be  the  immediate  result  of  their 
being  granted  the  right  of  franchise.  To  bring  about  that  re- 
sult, we  must  have  better  laws  and  better  executives. 

I  believe  that  if  women  spent  the  same  time  and  energy 
endeavoring  to  bring  about  reform  that  they  are  now  in  trying  to 
get  the  right  of  suffrage,  they  would  accomplish  as  much  good 
for  humanity  in  the  end  and  raise  the  standard  of  womanhood 
at  the  same  time.  I  sincerely  hope  the  time  is  not  far  distant 
when  conditions  will  be  so  improved  that  conscientious,  progressive 
women  will  not  feel  the  necessity  or  desire  to  vote. 

When  women  have  the  right  of  suffrage  they  will  naturally 
seek  office,  and  every  movement  in  this  direction  is  an  influence 
which  leads  them  away  from  their  home  duties.  Speed  the  time 
when  the  pendulum  will  swing  back  and  there  will  be  a  recession 
of  women  from  the  marts  of  men  toward  the  home  where  woman 
can  wield  her  greatest  influence  and  rise  to  her  highest  sphere. 
To  me,  woman  attains  her  greatest  glory,  she  occupies  her  noblest 
position  in  the  place  intended  for  her  by  the  All- Wise  Creator 
of  the  Universe — as  Queen  of  the  Home. 

CARNEGIE'S  WIDOW  FUND.— Carnegie's  endow- 
ment of  $25,000,000  to  provide  for  needy  widows  is  commend- 
able. But  it  solves  nothing  except  present  hunger.  If  the  hus- 
bands of  many  of  the  widows  who  will  benefit  by  this  fund  had 
been  properly  compensated  for  their  labor,  their  widows  would 
not  be  humiliated  subjects  of  charity  today.  It's  the  same  as 
the  case  of  England  already  mentioned. 


LABOR  UNIONS. — Labor  unions  are  about  the  only 
effective  bulwark  to-day  between  wealth  and  pauperism.  Their 
existence  serves  measurably  to  keep  up  the  wage  standard  to  the 
benefit  of  unaffiliated  as  well  as  associated  workers.  But  labor 
leaders  themselves  admit  that  even  though  labor  and  capital  are 
able  to  agree  on  terms,  this  would  not  really  solve  the  economic 
problem.  They  realize  that  capital  has  the  power  of  controlling 
prices  of  commodities  and  can  get  back  any  increase  in  wages 
twofold. 

But  unless  the  power  of  trusts  are  checked,  even  this  fortress 
is  doomed,  for  monopolies  destroy  unions  just  as  fast  as  they  are 
able.  Their  policy  is  to  permit  nothing  to  exist  which  stands 
in  the  way  of  doing  as  they  please  in  the  accumulation  of  wealth. 

Under  our  present  system  of  combinations  of  capital  on  one 
side  and  combinations  of  employees  on  the  other,  both  striving 
to  get  advantage  over  the  other,  an  unwholesome  condition  exists. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  their  interests  are  interdependent,  and  under 
a  just  system  of  profit  sharing,  such  as  would  result  from  Individ- 
ualism, both  sides  would  work  together  to  mutual  advantage. 

Since  capitalists  are  permitted  to  combine  for  mutual  ad- 
vantage, workers  must  in  justice  be  accorded  the  same  right.  It 
is  not  fair  to  ask  an  individual  employee  to  deal  with  a  great 
trust.  Labor  unions  can  never  become  a  menace  like  trusts.  The 
rich  have  sufficient  funds  to  provide  the  necessaries  of  life  for 
themselves  and  their  dependents  and  they  can  hold  out  indefinitely 
in  case  of  strike.  But  the  means  of  labor  are  limited  and  in  case 
of  strike  a  time  comes  when  they  have  to  give  in.  Therefore, 
until  a  better  system  of  wealth  distribution  can  be  materialized 
which  will  give  capital  and  labor  an  incentive  to  work  for  their 
mutual  interests,  labor  should  not  be  discriminated  against  by  the 
courts  as  they  have  been  in  the  past. 

REGULATION. — ^A  few  years  ago  the  wail  of  unwhole- 
some conditions  came  only  from  the  poor.  To-day  we  hear  the 
pitiful  cry  for  a  new  deal  going  up  from  the  rich  also.    This  is 


a  peculiar  condition  which  will  be  interesting  to  analyze  that  we 
may  determine  the  cause. 

During  the  past  three  decades  enormous  fortunes  have  been 
accumulated  with  great  rapidity  through  stock  jobbing,  bunko 
deals,  trusts,  pools,  combinations,  secret  rebates,  and  kindred 
means.  The  wealthy  have  pursued  a  **public  be  dammed*'  policy. 
They  have  had,  relatively  speaking,  no  consideration  for  the 
peoples'  rights.  They  have  taken  every  possible  means  which 
could  be  devised  to  filch  money  from  them  and  stay  out  of  jail. 
And  to  prevent  the  latter  inconvenience,  it  is  notorious  that  they 
have  bought  legislators,  big  and  httle,  and  have  had  favorable 
laws  passed  which  would  permit  them  to  **obey  the  law**  and 
still  continue  their  pilfering.  Even  the  judiciary  has  not  been 
sacred  to  them.  In  hundreds  of  cases  men  have  been  raised  to 
the  bench,  not  to  administer  justice,  but  to  bar  it. 

But,  to  use  a  trite  saying,  '*they  reckoned  without  their 
host.*'  Something  happened  which  was  not  on  their  program. 
Without  being  effusive,  we  can  say  that  the  American  people 
have  still  enough  good  red  blood  in  their  veins  that  they  will  not 
stand  for  everything.  There  is  a  limit,  and  a  few  years  ago  the 
worm  turned.  A  new  deal  was  demanded  and  lately  we  have 
been  enjoying  a  wave  of  reform.  So  strong  has  the  demand  for 
new  conditions  gone  up  from  the  people  that  those  in  power  have 
seen  the  handwriting  on  the  wall  and  acted  accordingly. 

Prosecutors  have  become  busy,  the  money  pirates  have  been 
haled  into  court,  and  they  are  now  begging  for  mercy.  On  Jan. 
10,  1912,  Andrew  Carnegie,  appearing  before  the  Stanley  Steel 
Investigating  Committee  at  Washington,  in  discussing  the  Stand- 
ard Oil  and  tobacco  decisions,  said: 

**The  offenders  in  general  (there  may  be  exceptions)  so 
far  under  the  Supreme  Court  decision  should  be  gently  dealt  with 
if  they  can  plead  misunderstanding  of  the  law." 

My,  how  the  mighty  are  fallen!  How  humiliating  it  must 
be  for  the  elect  to  beg  for  mercy  from  just  ordinary,  everyday 
human  beingi. 


This  same  cry  is  going  from  the  Captains  of  Infamy  every- 
where— **We  didn't  know  we  were  doing  wrong."  But  deep 
down  in  their  hearts  they  are  saying  to  themselves,  and  to  each 
other — only  to  each  other — in  regard  to  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust 
Law,  *'We  didn't  know  it  was  loaded." 

These  men  who  are  **in  bad"  now  want  to  let  bygones  be 
bygones.  They  are  willing  to  be  forgiven  for  their  little  mis- 
chievous stunts  of  combining  billions  of  dollars  of  capital  in 
direct  violation  of  the  law,  stifling  competition  and  robbing  the 
people  of  hundreds  of  millions  by  means  of  watered  stock,  freeze- 
outs,  and  other  little  tricks  of  the  trade.  They  would  now  like 
to  be  **gently  dealt  with."  And  they  would  like,  if  you  please, 
Mr.  People,  they  would  like  a  * 'Commission"  appointed,  a  Com- 
mission of  **business  men,"  not  impractical  fellows  like  lawyers, 
but  a  bunch  of  good  fellows  like  themselves,  who  could  read  over 
the  laws  and  see  what  they  really  do  mean,  and  then  tell  them 
just  what  they  could  do  and  what  they  couldn't.  A  Commission 
that  should,  to  use  Mr.  Carnegie's  words,  ''examine  all  details, 
ascertain  cost  of  production,  adding  to  this  such  amount  as  in  its 
judgment  will  yield  a  fair  or  even  a  liberal  return  upon  capital 
when  skillfully  invested  and  properly  managed.  The  maximum 
selling  price  to  consumers  to  be  fixed  by  the  court,  based  upon 
the  average  cost  price  of  production  in  well  managed  up-to-date 
works." 

Of  course  we  would  naturally  expect  the  most  worthy  ''Com- 
mission" to  base  their  calculations  on  the  steel  trust,  for  instance, 
on  $1,400,000,000  capital  and  bonds — overlooking  the  fact 
that  something  like  $800,000,000  of  it  is  water.  Why  cer- 
tainly.    The  merest  courtesy  would  demand  that. 

Now,  what  is  this  move?  Is  it  a  square  deal  or  a  frame- 
up?  Well,  I  confess  my  inability  to  read  minds  and  I  can't  say 
for  sure,  but  I  can  and  do  have  an  opinion  and  it  is  simply 
this: 

The  leopard  doesn't  change  its  spots  and  I  am  firmly  con- 
vinced that  the  men  who  control  "big  business" — **the  system" — 


have  not  become  conscience  stricken  and  overflowing  with  remorse 
simply  because  they  have  found  themselves  momentarily  in  a  tight 
place.  It  isn't  reasonable  to  believe  it.  They  still  want  to 
control  affairs  as  much  or  more  than  they  did  before,  and  they 
are  simply  playing  for  time  until  the  ire  and  vigilance  of  the 
people  have  subsided  and  they  can  get  a  new  strangle  hold  upon 
them. 

''Regulation  of  trusts"  a  remedy?  In  the  light  of  ex- 
perience, to  attempt  to  regulate  trusts  without  curbing  the  power 
of  the  individuals  behind  them  would  be  as  foolish  and  futile  as 
to  attempt  to  reach  the  North  Pole  in  a  duck  suit  and  a  straw 
hat. 

Away  back  in  1 887  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  was 
passed  as  a  direct  result  of  the  exposure  of  the  scandalous  prac- 
tice of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  in  not  only  getting  rebates 
from  railroads  on  its  own  shipments,  but  on  its  competitors'  ship- 
ments as  well.  And  we  know  what  terrible  things  that  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  has  done  to  the  Standard  Oil  and  all 
other  corporations  in  the  past  quarter  of  a  century. 

And,  by  the  way,  we  have  noticed  the  dire  results  of  the 
terrible  solar  plexus  blow  recently  dealt  the  Standard  Oil  by  the 
Supreme  Court.  That  Company  has  been  busy  since  * 'cutting 
melons"  in  the  shape  of  millions  of  dollars  and  distributing 
them  among  its  stockholders.  One  would  naturally  infer  from 
this  that  it  was  not  going  to  take  so  much  capital  to  conduct  its 
business  under  the  new  plan,  but  on  second  consideration  it  seems 
that  this  money  is  to  be  retaken  from  the  people,  as  its  prices 
have  gone  up.  The  excuse  given  is  that  it  costs  more  to  operate 
under  the  new  scheme.  Oh,  well,  we  have  known  for  a  long 
time  that  it  is  pretty  hard  to  slip  one  over  on  John  D.  His  trust 
seems  to  have  a  well  defined,  time  honored  policy  that  the  people 
stand  all  its  losses  and  the  company  makes  all  its  profits. 

In  the  past  twenty-two  years,  since  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust 
Law  was  passed  by  Congress  and  hundreds  of  other  laws  to 
prevent  pools  and  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade  have  been 


enacted  by  the  various  States,  practically  all  of  the  great  trusts 
have  had  their  birth  and  growth.  A  veritable  horde  of  Franken- 
steins,  big  and  little,  have  grown  up  under  laws  enacted  to  stifle 
them. 

The  men  who  formed  the  great  trusts  are  now  begging  to 
be  **regulated.*'  Since  they  have  wilfully  defied  the  law  in  the 
past,  what  assurance  have  we  that  they  will  respect  it  in  the  future? 
And  since  the  law  was  unable  to  prevent  them  from  combining 
while  operating  individual  companies,  how  in  the  name  of  com- 
mon sense  is  it  going  to  regulate  their  actions  now  that  they  have 
combined  and  are  therefore  infinitely  more  able  to  resist? 

Furthermore,  if  these  men  are  sincere  in  their  desire  to  do 
what  is  right  and  just,  why  should  they  ask  or  desire  laws  to 
regulate  their  actions?  Is  it  possible  that  they  have  lost  control 
over  themselves?  Have  they  become  like  a  man  who,  for  in- 
stance, has  committed  many  foul  deeds  and  wants  to  reform,  but 
is  afraid  he  cannot  control  himself,  so  he  goes  to  the  authorities 
and  asks  to  be  locked  up  so  he  can  commit  no  more  wrong? 

Men  of  Troy,  beware  the  wooden  horse,  ** Regulation." 
Should  you  draw  it  within  your  gates,  hidden  within  its  vitals 
will  be  found  that  trust  formed  instrument,  **The  Commission," 
whose  baleful,  insidious,  destructive  power  will  crush  the  life  of 
your  women  and  children  and  destroy  the  penates  of  your  fire- 
sides. 

Rockefeller,  Carnegie  and  Morgan  with  a  dozen  others,  con- 
trol the  destinies  of  the  ninety  odd  millions  of  people  who  inhabit 
these  United  States.  Our  boasted  republic  of  freemen  is  con- 
trolled by  an  oligarchy  whose  untold  wealth  and  the  dominating 
influence  which  it  gives  them  is  more  powerful  than  a  standing 
army.  They  hold  the  sinews  of  war.  There  is  only  one  way 
to  **regulate"  them  and  that  is  to  shear  them  of  their  power  as 
the  Philistines  did  Sampson  of  old.  I  believe  we  should  do 
what  we  can  to  regulate  the  trusts,  but  to  make  this  effective  we 
must  regulate  the  individual.  Until  the  units  of  society  are  re- 
duced in  their  financial  strength,  until  they  can  be  made  amenable 


to  the  law,  there  can  be  no  effective  regulation  of  their  combina- 
tions. Properly  regulate  the  individuals  and  the  regulation  of 
the  trusts  will  be  a  comparatively  easy  matter. 

GOVERNMENT  OWNERSHIP.— Another  remedy 
proposed  is  public  ownership.  Those  who  advocate  this  means 
of  besting  the  trusts  thereby  admit  the  inability  of  the  govern- 
ment to  control  the  creatures  which  have  grown  up  under  its 
protection.  This  is  a  sad  commentary  on  our  boasted  system 
of  government,  and  while  I  admit  that  we  are  virtually  governed 
by  an  oligarchy  today,  I  am  not  willing  to  admit  that  the  people 
have  not  the  power  to  so  change  their  laws  that  they  will  again 
become  supreme. 

I  am  sure  that  if  the  wealth  accumulations  of  each  in- 
dividual are  limited  to  what  he  should  justly  have,  that  it  will 
not  be  necessary  for  the  government  to  go  into  the  coal  mining 
business  in  Alaska  to  compete  with  the  coal  barons  who  are  hold- 
ing up  the  people  of  the  Northwest  for  exhorbitant  prices;  that 
it  will  not  be  necessary  for  the  government  to  take  over  the 
eighteen  billion  dollars'  worth  of  railroads  in  this  country  in  order 
that  just  rates  and  conditions  may  be  secured  for  the  producer 
and  consumer,  or  do  many  of  the  other  things  which  the  public 
ownership  enthusiasts  propose. 

Let  us  see  what  would  happen  if  those  who  believe  in  gov- 
ernment ownership  were  to  carry  out  their  program.  In  the  first 
place,  if  the  government  started  in  to  compete  with  private  enter- 
prise to  keep  down  prices  and  keep  up  wagfc«,  it  would  have 
to  compete  with  every  trust  in  the  country.  This  would  neces- 
sitate buying  from  40%  to  50%  of  each  industry  controlled  by 
a  trust.  It  would,  in  most  instances,  have  to  buy  from  the  trusts 
themselves.  The  trusts  owners  would  then  have  billions  of  dol- 
lars of  capital  realized  from  the  sale  of  property  to  the  govern- 
ment, besides  still  owning  approximately  half  the  business  of  the 
country.  Since  they  practically  run  the  government  now  they 
would  be  infinitely  more  powerful  to  do  so  then.  And  our  last 
state  would  be  worse  than  the  first. 


INDIVIDUALISM  VS.  SOCIALISM.— Socialism  is 
one  of  the  many  evils  which  have  resulted  from  the  world's  inane 
policy  of  permitting  human  avarice  to  go  unrestrained.  It  has 
attained  more  or  less  popularity  for  the  following  reasons: 

(a)  Because  it  has  been  intensely  advertised;  (b)  because, 
like  a  free  lunch,  it  offers  something  for  nothing,  and  (c) 
because  the  people  are  so  thoroughly  disgusted  with  existing  con- 
ditions that,  like  a  drowning  man  who  grasps  at  a  straw,  they 
are  willing  to  accept  even  a  dream  in  the  hope  that  it  will  turn 
out  to  be  a  reality. 

I  have  great  respect  for  the  intentions  of  many  who  sub- 
scribe to  its  doctrines.  I  believe  them  to  be  sincere,  but  mis- 
guided men  and  women  who  are  anxious  to  do  something  to 
better  the  status  of  humanity,  and  have  been  lured  to  Socialism 
by  its  social  reform  program,  the  aims  and  ends  of  which  all 
humanitarians  endorse.  But  Socialism  is  subtle  and  insidious. 
Its  evils  lie  beneath  its  cloak  of  social  reform.  Its  ultimate 
program  is  so  enervating,  impractical,  selfish,  anarchistic  and  vile 
that  when  its  decent,  well  meaning  advocates  learn  what  it  actually 
is  they  forsake  it  forthwith. 

Let  us  see  from  the  writings  and  speeches  of  its  leaders 
what  its  program  really  is,  and  what  would  result  from  its  adop- 
tion. At  the  same  time  we  will  compare  it  with  Individualism 
and  note  that  one  is  the  direct  antithesis  of  the  other. 

ENERVATING. — Socialism  would  centralize  all  owner- 
ship and  power  as  far  as  possible  in  the  government.  The  people 
would  become  mere  cogs  in  a  great  machine.  The  routine  and 
lack  of  independent  action  would  dwarf  them  much  as  an  orphan 
asylum  does  its  inmates.  Individualism  would  leave  ownership 
of  property  and  power  with  the  people  as  far  as  possible  and 
practical.  This  would  put  each  one  on  his  own  merits,  thereby 
developing  the  race.  People  would  have  even  more  of  an  oppor- 
tunity for  independent  effort  than  under  our  present  Liberalism, 
for  hundreds  of  thousands  are  now  dominated  bv  trusts  which  


make  working  conditions  similar  to  what  they  would  be  under 
Socialism. 

Socialism  would  lower  the  standard  of  intelligence  and 
decrease  energy  because  all  workers  would  be  compensated  equally 
according  to  the  number  of  hours  they  worked,  irrespective  of 
the  kind  or  amount  of  work  they  did.  This  would  remove  the 
incentive  to  self  improvement  and  individual  effort.  Under  In- 
dividualism the  standard  would  be  raised  as  workers  would  be 
compensated  according  to  both  the  quality  and  quantity  of  their 
work. 

IMPRACTICAL. — Socialism  is  impractical  because  it 
proposes  to  treat  all  men  as  equals  in  their  earning  capacity. 
They  are  not  equal  in  this  respect  and  no  set  of  human  laws  can 
make  them  so.  Individualism  is  practical  because  it  recognizes 
the  inequality  of  men  in  their  ability  to  accumulate  wealth,  and 
would  permit  each  to  exercise  his  ability  100  times  beyond  the 
average. 

Socialism  is  impractical  because  its  success  would  require 
each  person  to  work  for  the  common  good.  This  is  an  ideal 
condition  which  we  would  all  like  to  bring  about,  but  in  dealing 
with  human  nature  we  must  take  it  as  it  is  and  not  as  we  wish 
it  were.  Individualism  recognizes  that  people  are  more  or  less 
selfish,  and  it  would  take  advantage  of  that  by  making  it  an 
incentive  for  them  to  help  each  other  in  order  to  help  themselves ; 
for  example,  by  sharing  profits  as  will  be  explained  at  length 
later.  Those  who  were  thoroughly  selfish  would  be  curbed  from 
carrying  their  passion  for  money  making  to  a  point  where  it  could 
injure  others  as  now. 

Centralization  of  wealth  is  always  dangerous,  as  it  gives 
a  few  strong  men  a  better  opportunity  of  getting  control  of  it 
than  they  would  have  if  ownership  were  well  distributed  among 
many  individuals.  Therefore  on  this  point  Individualism  is  far 
better  than  any  form  of  communism. 

ANARCHISTIC— Socialists  advocate  a  Red  Revolution 
if  necessary  to  establish  their  system  of  philosophy.  Individual- 


ism  would  establish  itself  not  through  violence,  but  through  the 
legal  procedure  prescribed  in  the  basic  law  of  the  Nation. 

ATHEISTIC. — Socialism  would  destroy  Christianity  if  it 
could.  Here  are  two  of  several  extracts  taken  from  The  Com- 
mon Cause,  February,  1912,  which  show  just  where  the  leaders 
of  this  movement  stand: 

'*It  is  our  duty  as  Socialists  to  root  out  the  faith  in  God 
with  all  our  zeal,  nor  is  any  one  worthy  the  name  who  does  not 
consecrate  himself  to  the  spread  of  atheism." — Wilhelm  Leib- 
knecht  in  Materialist  Basis  of  Histor]). 

** Christianity  is  the  enemy  of  liberty  and  civilization.  It 
has  kept  mankind  in  slavery  and  oppression.  The  Church  and 
State  have  always  fraternally  united  to  exploit  the  people.  Chris- 
tianity and  Socialism  are  like  fire  and  water." — August  Bebel  in 
Vorrvarts. 

Socialism  would  not  only  attempt  to  destroy  Christianity, 
but  the  sacredness  of  the  family  as  well,  by  making  the  marriage 
contract  one  of  convenience.  A  man  and  woman  being  permitted 
to  dissolve  the  bond  at  pleasure  without  civil  or  religious  sanc- 
tion. Individualism  anticipates  no  change  in  respect  to  the  mar- 
riage laws. 

Free  love  is  commonly  advocated  by  Socialists,  and  one  prom- 
inent writer  whom  I  have  read  makes  the  nauseating  suggestion 
that  the  time  will  come  when  young  people  may  gratify  their 
passions  without  shame. 

And  this  is  but  an  inkling  of  the  foul  vileness  of  Socialism 
which,  under  the  cloak  of  **social  reform,"  has  crept  into  our 
midst;  whose  deadly  poison  has  inoculated  more  than  a  million 
of  our  people.  Were  it  possible  that  Socialism  should  become 
powerful  enough  to  put  its  tenets  into  force,  we  would  have  a 
condition  a  thousand  times  worse  than  under  our  present  Liberal- 
ism. 

Socialism  is  like  an  ugly  sore  on  a  man's  face.  A  doctor 
may  come,  look  at  it,  and  declare  that  it  should  not  be  there. 
But  though  he  talk  a  year  against  it,  and  do  nothing  to  remove 
the  cause,  it  will  remain  there  still;  it  will  increase  its  deadly  in- 


fluence,  and  finally  end  the  life  of  the  patient.  Liberalism  is 
fostering  Socialism,  we  must  eradicate  the  former  from  our 
economic  system  or  take  the  consequences  of  the  latter. 

(To  learn  what  Socialism  really  is  see  The  Common  Came, 
New  York  City,  or  Socialism:  The  Nation  of  Fatherless  Chil- 
dren, by  David  Goldstein,  Boston.) 


The  Solution 

As  stated  at  the  outset,  our  economic  troubles  are  due 
primarily  to  the  fact  that  some  people  have  too  much  wealth, 
others  too  little.  My  solution  is  to  limit  each  individual  to  $  1 00,- 
000  of  commercial  property,  permitting  him  to  retain  in  addition 
an  unlimited  amount  of  non-commercial  property. 

By  * 'commercial  property"  I  mean  all  wealth  except  that 
which  is  owned  and  used  for  personal  shelter,  food,  clothing, 
pleasure,  luxury,  charitable  and  religious  purposes.  Under  this 
arrangement  therefore,  each  individual  could  have: 

(1)  An  aggregate  of  $100,000  of  commercial  property, 
such  as  money,  notes,  stocks,  bonds,  machinery,  boats,  and  im- 
proved or  vacant  land  used  or  held  for  private  gain,  rented  or 
otherwise ; 

(2)  An  unlimited  amount  of  non-commercial  property 
held  for  personal  use,  such  as  a  homestead,  including  any  amount 
of  land  actually  used  for  homestead  purposes,  food,  fuel,  furniture, 
clothing,  fine  art,  jewelry,  automobiles,  etc.,  used  for  pleasure. 

Under  this  arrangement  a  pope,  bishop,  rabbi,  congrega- 
tion, rehgious  order,  or  any  strictly  eleemosynary  or  educational 
institution  not  conducted  for  profit  could  have  an  unlimited  amount 
of  church  or  institutional  property,  as  that  would  not  come  under 
the  head  of  '^commercial  property.*' 

IS  THE  LIMIT  HIGH  ENOUGH?— I  think  ever\)one 
will  admit  that  it  would  not  be  well  if  one  person  owned  all  the 
money  in  the  world,  therefore  there  must  be  some  amount  between 


nothing  and  everything  to  which  each  individual  ought  to  be  lim- 
ited. But  we  have  become  so  accustomed  to  think  of  men  pos- 
sessing millions,  and  even  hundreds  of  millions,  that  the  question 
naturally  arises,  **Is  the  proposed  limit  high  enough?*' 

In  considering  this  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  limita- 
tion is  put  on  the  individuaU  not  on  a  family.  Women  and  chil- 
dren could  each  have  as  much  as  men. 

The  legitimate  uses  of  wealth  are  as  follows:  To  provide 
(1)  the  necessaries  of  life;  (2)  a  surplus  for  the  **rainy  day'*; 
(3)  for  religion,  charity  and  other  benevolences;  (4)  bequests 
for  dependents,  and  (5)  luxuries.  Let  us  see  if  the  amount  per- 
mitted to  be  held  is  not  more  than  sufficient  to  amply  provide  for 
all  these  legitimate  uses  of  wealth. 

To  the  rich  the  cost  of  actual  necessaries  of  life  are  not 
great,  relatively  considered.  They  include  food,  clothing  and 
shelter.  A  person  can  eat  only  three  meals  a  day — safely,  he 
can  wear  only  one  suit  of  clothes  at  a  time — comfortably,  and  he 
needs  only  one  roof  to  sleep  under.  For  a  family  of  five,  the 
following  amounts  would  be  ample:  Food,  $1,500;  clothing, 
$1,000;  rent  $1,500.  If  the  head  of  a  family  of  five,  worth 
in  toto  $500,000,  worked,  his  salary  ought  to  be  at  least  $2,000. 
Four  per  cent  net  on  $500,000  would  provide  an  income  of 
$20,000,  making  the  total  income  for  the  family  $22,000.  The 
limit  would  therefore  provide  for  the  necessaries  and  leave  a  sur- 
plus of  $18,000,  which  must  be  disposed  of.  And  $18,000  a 
year  for  a  family  ought  to  be  ample  for  recreation,  religion, 
charities,  luxuries,  etc. 

The  individual  income  on  $  1 00,000  capital  would  be 
ample  provision  against  old  age  or  other  non-producing  periods 
of  life.  Insurance  could  be  carried  to  provide  for  these  exigen- 
cies also. 

At  the  death  of  any  member  of  the  family  his  $100,000 
would  be  available  for  bequests. 

This  analysis  shows  that  the  limit  is  ample  for  each  in- 
dividual to  provide  for  his  own  uses  and  do  something  for  his 


fellow  man — but  not  sufficient  to  permit  him  to  do  much  against 
him.  ,  _  j  : 

Let  us  consider  the  limit  from  another  angle,  the  superior 
earning  power  of  one  person  over  another.  If  all  individuals 
were  equal  in  this  respect  and  had  the  same  opportunities,  they 
would  each  possess  an  equal  share  of  the  wealth  of  the  country. 
But  since  some  people  are  more  capable  than  others,  and  willing 
to  work  harder  to  earn  and  make  greater  sacrifices  to  save,  they 
should  be  permitted  to  have  more  than  the  average. 

The  per  capita  wealth  being  $1,300,  and  our  limit  being 
$100,000  plus  an  unhmited  amount  of  non-commercial  property, 
which  could  amount  to  $30,000,  this  would  permit  one  person 
to  have  at  least  $  1  30,000  commercial  and  non-commercial  prop- 
erty combined,  or  1 00  times  as  much  as  the  average. 

If  all  men  had  approximately  even  opportunities,  would 
one  man  be  more  than  1 00  times  stronger  than  the  average?  Con- 
sider it  on  a  physical  basis.  Can  one  man  shovel  more  coal  than 
100  men?  Can  one  carpenter  drive  more  nails  than  100  others? 
Can  one  mason  lay  more  bricks  than  100  others?  Obviously 
not;  therefore,  on  a  purely  physical  basis,  the  limit  is  high. 

Mental  ability  is  more  difficult  to  measure.  Can  a  lawyer 
or  a  doctor  or  a  salesman  do  100  times  as  much  as  the  average 
man? 

The  immense  fortunes  in  this  country,  as  we  know,  have 
been  made  through  laws  which  favor  the  rich  at  the  expense  of 
the  poor,  through  illegal  combinations  of  capital  which  permit 
the  cutting  of  wages  and  the  arbitrary  increase  of  prices,  through 
the  sale  of  watered  stock,  through  the  freezing  out  of  stockhold- 
ers, and  numerous  other  unjust  means  and  measures.  In  respect 
to  crookedness  and  injustice,  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  some 
men  are  more  than  a  hundred  times  as  adept  as  the  average,  and 
this  is  the  trait  in  human  nature  which  Individualism  would  curb. 

There  is  one  other  feature  to  consider.  Can  one  person  be 
100  times  more  saving  than  the  average  man?  Suppose  100 
men  are  earning  $100  a  month  each.  A  few  will  spend  more 
than  that  and  run  into  debt,  others  will  spend  just  that,  but  it  is 


conservative  to  say  that  at  least  half  will  save  an  average  of  $  1 0 
each.  The  50  will  therefore  save  $500.  As  this  is  5  times  as 
much  as  any  one  of  them  makes,  it  is  obvious  that  one  person 
cannot  save  as  much  as  even  a  small  per  cent  of  100  average 
earners. 

In  view  of  the  above  I  feel  that  the  limit  is  just,  ample  and 
even  liberal  from  every  standpoint. 


Results  of  Individualism 

Individualism  is  not  a  panacea  which  is  guaranteed  per  se 
to  cure  all  the  ills  that  ** flesh  is  heir  to,"  but  it  would  remove  the 
fundamental  cause  of  present  conditions,  and  thereby  permit  many 
wholesome  reforms  to  be  accomplished.  There  would  be  no 
great  power  behind  the  throne  as  now  to  thwart  the  will  and  in- 
terests of  the  people. 

Individualism  is  not  warranted  to  make  the  lazy  lively,  nor 
to  make  the  spendthrifts  save  their  money,  but  it  would  give  those 
who  are  anxious  to  work  and  lay  up  something  for  the  future  a 
chance  to  do  so.  It  would  help  humanity  materially,  mentally 
and  morally  as  I  shall  proceed  to  demonstrate. 

MINIMIZE  POVERTY.— Since  Individualism  would 
result  in  a  more  equal  distribution  of  wealth,  it  would  necessarily 
minimize  poverty.  TTiere  is  a  limited  amount  of  wealth  in  any 
country.  If  a  few  men  get  control  of  most  of  it,  the  others  must 
necessarily  have  relatively  less.  And  if  the  centralization  con- 
tinues far  enough,  the  time  comes  when  some  people  have  so  much 
wealth  that  they  can  enjoy  every  possible  luxury  and  still  not 
consume  even  a  fraction  of  their  incomes,  while  others  have  lo 
struggle  along  on  the  edge  of  starvation. 

That  is  the  condition  we  have  reached.  A  few  American 
citizens  own  HUNDREDS  OF  MILLIONS  of  dollars'  worth 
of  property  each.  And  yet  there  are  tens  of  thousands  of  other 
American  citizens  who  would  not  realize  enough  to  pay  their 


grocer  and  landlord,  if  the  furniture  and  clothing  of  the  whole 
family  were  sold. 

This  winter  I  went  into  a  **home"  in  this  city  and  found 
this  condition,  which  is  typical  of  thousands  of  others:  A  father, 
who  had  been  unable  to  secure  work  for  several  weeks,  a  mother 
sitting  on  a  box  by  a  kitchen  stove,  containing  but  a  meager  fire, 
trying  to  keep  warm  a  ten  days'  old  baby,  bom  in  below  zero 
Tveather;  three  small  boys — one  without  shoes  or  stockings,  an- 
other with  mittens  and  cap  to  aid  the  spark  of  fire  help  keep  him 
warm.  These  6  American  citizens  possessed,  collectively  (with 
3  months'  rent  unpaid),  about  $8  worth  of  junk  furniture  and 
clothing,  and  2  potatoes.  The  latter  being  the  remains  of  what 
had  been  supplied  them  by  the  city. 

And  the  combined  wealth  of  two  men  in  this  country  ex- 
ceeds ONE  BILLION  DOLLARS!  Look  at  the  line  of 
figures— $  1 ,000,000,000.00. 

Under  Individualism  there  would  be  just  as  much  wealth 
as  before,  but  there  would  be  no  Carnegie,  who  could  GIVE 
AWAY  TWO  HUNDRED  MILLION  DOLLARS  to  per- 
petuate his  name,  while  an  able-bodied  man  who  was  willing  to 
work  could  not  have  more  than  2  potatoes  to  keep  his  family 
of  six  from  starving. 

The  per  capita  wealth  in  the  United  States,  figuring  ninety 
millions  of  people  and  one  hundred  and  twenty  billions  of  dollars' 
worth  of  value,  is  about  $1 ,300  each.  If  Rockefeller  has  $800,- 
000,000,  as  reputed,  he  has  over  SIX  HUNDRED  THOU- 
SAND TIMES  as  much  as  the  average  person  in  the  United 
States;  he  could  give  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  city 
of  Cleveland  $1,000  each  and  still  have  practically  $240,000,- 
000  left;  by  giving  away  $5,000  a  minute^  working  8  hours  a 
day,  it  would  require,  to  dispose  of  his  wealth,  333  DAYS! 

But  wait,  my  friends,  be  not  alarmed  at  such  an  incon- 
ceivable aggregation  of  afFluence.  Remember,  Congress  in  Wash- 
ington is  on  the  job.  Our  representatives  are  looking  after  us 
"back  home."    They  are  seeing  that  we  are  going  to  get  a  square 


deal.  Yea,  e'en  now  they  are  wrestling  with  the  mighty  prob- 
lem of  coining  a  half-cent  piece  so  our  wives  can  grab  up  the 
comer  grocer's  bargains.  With  such  wise  and  judicious  masters 
at  the  helm  of  the  Ship  of  State,  what  need  we  fear  for  the 
future?  Let  John  D.  revel  in  his  Eight  Hundred  Millions;  if 
this  question  be  decided  in  favor  of  us.  The  People,  we  shall 
soon  be  able  to  jingle  a  new,  bright  half -cent  piece  against  the 
night  key  in  our  jeans,  and  then  we'll  all  be  happy.  Hats  off  I 
say  to  those  noble  patriots  who  have  the  keen  vision  to  see  the 
crux  of  the  high  cost  of  living,  and  solve  it  by  that  master  stroke 
of  statesmanship — TTie  Half-Cent.  With  that  formidable  weapon 
in  David's  sling,  the  John  D.s  and  other  Goliaths  had  better 
seek  refuge  in  the  woods  forthwith!  We'll  buy  a  half-cent's 
worth  of  oil  or  potatoes  and  let  the  remainder  perish  on  their 
hands.    The  half-cent  will  solve  the  high  cost  of  living — -NOT. 

Under  Individualism  there  could  be  no  Rockefeller  wallow- 
ing in  this  mass  of  wealth  while  millions  of  just  as  honest  Ameri- 
can citizens  have  to  figure  down  to  the  half-cent;  while  the 
mothers  of  the  6-year-old  infants  drag  them  along  the  streets  at 
dawn  to  labor  all  day  in  mills,  as  is  done  in  hundreds  of  cases  in 
this  country  today. 

Under  Individualism  there  would  be  no  trust-made  mag- 
nates who  could  give  their  wives  pearl  necklaces  which  cost 
$500,000,  or  even  $200,000,  while  thousands  and  thousands 
of  their  fellow  countrymen  did  not  have  enough  clothing  to  pre- 
vent them  suffering  from  the  rigors  of  zero  weather. 

Under  Individualism  there  would  be  no  favored  few  who 
could  amass  hundreds  of  millions  by  means  of  tariff  protection 
and  underpaid  labor  which  brought  about  living  conditions  so 
inhuman  and  intolerable  that  it  caused  a  Homestead  strike,  the 
horror  of  which,  after  20  years,  is  still  deeply  impressed  upon 
the  memory,  or  a  coal  strike,  or  a  McKeesport,  Lawrence,  or 
others  of  more  recent  memory. 

MINIMIZE  TRUST  EVILS.— Individualism  would  re- 
duce the  insidious  influence  of  trusts,  or  huge  combinations  of 


capital,  by  eliminating  watered  stock,  destroying  the  incentive  to 
filch  both  the  employee  and  the  consumer,  and  aiding  both  direct- 
ly and  indirectly  in  restoring  competition.  While  doing  this  the 
Igitimate  usefulness  of  great  corporations  would  not  be  impaired, 
and  our  commercial  supremacy  would  be  as  marked  as  now. 

EVAPORATE  WATERED  STOCK.— Individualism 
would  automatically  squeeze  water  out  of  stocks  of  the  great 
corporations.  A  man  who  had  in  excess  of  the  limit  would 
naturally  list  his  stock  at  its  true  value  when  The  Readjustment 
took  place. 

RESTORE  COMPETITION.— A  great  many  men  have 
been  forced  unwillingly  either  to  amalgamate  with  the  trusts  or 
be  ruined.  They  are  capable  men  of  independent  temperament 
and  prefer  to  be  at  the  head  of  small  business  enterprises  of  their 
own  than  to  be  nobodies  in  great  corporations.  As  soon,  there- 
fore, as  the  greedy  multi-millionaires  are  shorn  of  the  power  and 
incentive  to  crush  competition  at  any  cost,  just  so  soon  will  these 
independents  re-establish  themselves  in  business. 

A  NEW  BUSINESS  POLICY.— Under  Individualism 
we  could  still  have  as  large  corporations  as  now  but  there  would 
be  different  motives  behind  their  owners.  The  minority  stock- 
holders would  have  far  greater  consideration.  They  would  have 
a  real  voice  in  the  election  of  directors,  and  I  have  enough  con- 
fidence in  the  people  to  believe  that  if  the  control  of  any  company 
was  divided  with  tolerable  equality  among  a  large  number  of 
people  they  would  not  permit  the  Two  Edged  Sword  used 
against  the  wage  earner  on  one  side  and  the  consumer  on  the 
other. 

MORE  STEADY  EMPLOYMENT.— Individualism 
would  make  employment  of  labor  more  steady.  That  is  almost 
as  important  to  the  laboring  classes  as  high  wages,  many  never 
having  been  trained  to  save  for  the  rainy  day.  If  the  annual 
income  of  a  man  was  limited  to  $1,200  a  year,  no  matter  how 
much  he  worked,  it  would  be  better  for  him  and  his  family  to 


make  $100  a  month  for  12  months  than  $200  a  month  for  6 
months  and  be  idle  the  rest  of  the  time. 

Mr.  Louis  D.  Brandeis  of  Boston,  in  testifying  before  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce  in  December,  1911, 
stated  that  for  nearly  four  years  the  plants  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation  were  operated  at  little  more  than  two-thirds 
their  capacity.  The  company  is  so  large  that  it  cannot  keep  all 
the  men  employed  all  the  time.  Under  Individualism  there  would 
be  no  incentive  to  have  a  company  so  big  that  it  could  not  keep 
all  its  plants  in  operation.  Under  our  present  Liberalism,  if  a 
miUionaire  can  keep  half,  or  even  a  quarter,  of  his  wealth  bring- 
ing in  an  income  all  the  time;  he  does  not  have  to  worry  about 
getting  along.  But  if  a  man  were  limited  to  $  1 00,000  he  would 
endeavor  to  keep  all  of  it  working  all  the  time. 

When  companies  are  too  large,  they  not  only  cannot  keep 
their  plants  in  operation  continuously,  but  they  cannot  maintain 
the  quality  of  their  product.  This  also  has  been  demonstrated  in 
the  case  of  the  steel  trust,  as  evidenced  by  the  greatly  increased 
number  of  railroad  wrecks  during  the  past  ten  years. 

The  fact  that  an  employer  of  labor  were  limited  in  his  hold- 
ings would  also  cause  him  to  take  such  steps  as  would  insure  his 
retaining  the  maximum  amount  and  secure  a  good  income  there- 
from. Therefore,  instead  of  getting  all  the  work  he  could  out 
of  his  employees  and  giving  them  as  little  as  possible  in  return, 
it  would  be  to  his  advantage  to  aid  them  in  every  way  he  could. 
Their  prosperity  would  insure  his  prosperity.  Here  are  some  of 
the  steps  he  would  find  it  to  his  interest  to  take: 

( 1 )  INCREASE  WAGES— To  pay  as  high  wages  as 
he  could  afford  in  order  to  attract  and  retain  the  most  reliable  and 
most  skilled  men  in  his  line  of  work. 

(2)  SHARE  PROFITS— To  share  profits  with  his 
employees  on  a  merit  basis  and  thus  induce  them  to  put  forth 
their  best  efforts. 


(3)  IMPROVE  WORKING  CONDITIONS— To 
improve  the  working  conditions  of  his  employees  to  increase  their 
efficiency  and  insure  their  loyalty. 

If  some  employers  were  so  selfish  that  they  would  not  vol- 
untarily make  these  concessions  or  were  so  short  sighted  that  they 
could  not  see  it  was  to  their  interest  to  do  so,  they  would  be  com- 
pelled to  in  order  to  save  themselves.  Suppose  there  were  three 
machine  shops  in  a  town,  each  employing  1  00  men.  If  the  owner 
of  one,  to  insure  the  retention  of  his  maximum  limit  of  capital  and 
derive  a  good  income  therefrom,  increased  the  wages  of  his  men, 
gave  them  a  share  of  the  profits  and  improved  their  working  con- 
ditions, and  the  proprietors  of  the  other  two  shops  failed  to  do 
likewise,  their  men  would  naturally  apply  to  the  up-to-date  man  for 
work.  He  then  would  be  in  a  position  to  select  the  best  workers 
in  that  industry  in  the  town.  This  will  give  him  a  great  advantage 
over  his  competitors,  and  they  would  be  compelled  to  follow  suit 
in  self  protection. 

Practically  the  same  process  would  militate  to  raise  the  wages 
of  workers  whose  employers  were  not  directly  affected  by  the 
new  order.  Suppose  a  lawyer  was  paying  his  stenographer  $50 
per  month.  If  he  were  not  so  affluent  as  to  find  it  necessary 
to  increase  his  stenographer's  salary  to  help  rid  himself  of  his 
surplus  income,  he  might  not  voluntarily  do  so.  But  if  the 
factories  in  his  town  raised  the  salaries  of  their  stenographers,  he 
would  then  have  to  do  likewise  or  his  stenographer  would  get  a 
job  with  one  of  them  and  he  would  have  to  take  an  inferior 
worker  at  $50  per  month.  A  similar  adjustment  would  take 
place  in  every  department  of  effort.  Individualism  would  there- 
fore make  for  equalization  all  along  the  line. 

But  the  lawyer  and  others  similarly  affected  could  well  af- 
ford to  meet  the  increase  as  their  net  income  would  increase.  Those 
who  now  have  wealth  in  excess  of  what  they  need  and  should 
have  are  the  only  ones  whose  incomes  would  be  decreased  under 
Individualism. 

WOULD  INCREASE  CONSERVATISM.— Present 
opportunities  for  making  great  fortunes  quickly  through  stock 


jobbing  and  gambling  in  the  markets  tend  to  make  gamblers.  The 
new  order  of  affairs  would  prevent  this  to  a  large  degree.  Fur- 
thermore, it  would  aid  materially  in  making  the  people  more  con- 
servative. 

When  men  did  business  as  individuals  or  as  partners,  they 
were  personally  liable  for  debts  and  were  necessarily  conserva- 
tive. Today  a  corporation  can  gamble  any  amount  in  the  busi- 
ness world  and  if  it  loses,  its  stockholders  cannot  be  held  for 
more  than  the  face  of  their  stock.  If  the  amount  of  wealth  which 
a  person  could  own  were  limited,  it  would  largely  remove  the 
incentive  for  him  to  take  a  chance  on  making  **a  big  winner,"  be- 
cause he  could  not  retain  it  if  he  were  successful.  Furthermore, 
he  could  not  so  well  afford  to  take  a  chance  of  losing. 

In  addition  to  all  the  above,  men  would  further  discount 
their  chance  of  loss  by  resorting  more  extensively  to  insurance. 
Fire,  life,  actident  and  sick  insurance  are  common  now.  These 
forms  would  not  only  become  more  popular  and  general  but 
other  forms  would  come  in  vogue  also.  For  example,  farmers  would 
insure  against  drouth  and  failure  of  crops.  Southern  horticul- 
turists and  agriculturists  would  insure  their  orange  groves  and 
other  perishables  against  frost.  Most  people  would  insure  their 
property  against  tornadoes.  Business  men  would  insure  against 
losses  incident  to  their  particular  lines,  etc.,  and  every  extension 
of  insurance  would  help  to  maintain  a  fair  distribution  of  wealth. 

RAISE  STANDARD  OF  LIVING.— Individualism 
would  raise  the  standard  of  living  of  the  poor,  the  head  of  the 
house  having  an  opportunity  to  earn  a  larger  income  because  of 
more  steady  employment  and  increased  wages.  Those  who  were 
able  and  willing  to  work  and  husband  their  earnings  could  have 
all  the  necessaries  and  at  least  some  of  the  luxuries  of  life. 

LESSEN  CHILD  AND  WOMAN  LABOR.— Child 
labor  could  be  abolished  and  fewer  girls  and  women  would  be 
required  to  work  in  proportion  as  the  opportunity  of  fathers  to 
earn  were  increased.  If  this  were  done  without  a  more  equitable 
distribution  of  wealth  than  we  have  at  present,  the  standard  of 


living  must  necessarily  decrease.  Therefore,  in  order  to  do  away 
with  child  and  woman  labor  we  must  increase  the  earning  power 
of  fathers,  husbands  and  brothers. 

BETTER  EDUCATION.— More  children  could  be 
sent  to  school  longer,  and  a  larger  percentage  could  have  the 
benefit  of  a  college  education. 

RECREATION  AND  SELF-IMPROVEMENT.— 
Shorter  hours  of  labor  would  permit  wage  earners  more  time  for 
self  improvement,  recreation,  family  enjoyment,  social  and  re- 
ligious service. 

INCREASE  OF  INDIVIDUAL  EFFICIENCY.— 
Individualism  offers  the  best  possible  incentive  to  human  develop- 
ment because  merit  would  be  a  material  factor  in  compensation. 
Under  the  union  labor  system  of  today  the  wages  of  all  journey- 
men in  an  industry  are  virtually  the  same.  Under  Individualism 
individual  efficiency  would  count  in  every  occupation,  since  part 
of  the  compensation  would  come  from  profits  distributed  on  a  merit 
basis. 

INCREASE  MARRIAGES.— On  account  of  the  high 
cost  of  living  many  young  men  nowadays  fail  to  get  married. 
They  realize  their  inability  to  give  a  wife  the  same  standard  of 
living  which  she  now  enjoys.  Many  young  women  now  earn 
as  good  salaries  as  men,  and  the  youth  knows  that  if  he  marries 
such  a  girl  there  will  be  but  one  income  where  there  were  two 
before,  hence  he  hesitates  about  taking  the  step.  With  a  less 
number  of  young  women  working  and  the  men  earning  larger 
wages,  the  present  financial  barrier  would  be  removed. 

MORAL  EFFECT. — Extremes  breed  crime.  The  very 
rich  become  so  avaricious  that  they  commit  crimes  and  do  in- 
justices to  their  fellowmen  that  they  may  make  more  money. 
Furthermore,  they  become  so  engrossed  in  their  race  for  wealth 
that  they  fail  to  consider  the  future  life.  Extreme  poverty  is 
responsible  for  many  petty  crimes,  both  of  omission  and  of  com- 
mission.   Since  Individualism  would  reduce  swollen  fortunes  and 


minimize  poverty  it  would  produce  a  wholesome  moral  effect 
accordingly. 

CHECK  WHITE  SLAVERY.— One  of  the  most  bale- 
ful results  of  poverty  is  white  slavery.  Many  girls  and  young 
J  women  are  now  easy  victims  of  the  so-called  white  slave  traffic 
C^since  their  incomes  are  so  small  as  to  prevent  in  many  cases  their 
earning  enough  to  give  them  the  standard  of  living  they  desire. 
Individualism  would,  of  course,  not  in  itself  abolish  this  evil,  but 
it  would  at  least  remove  one  of  the  causes  of  it. 

CHECK  RACE  SUICIDE.— There  would  be  an  incen- 
tive to  those  ambitious  to  be  rich  to  have  a  large  family,  so  they 
could  continue  their  accumulations  and  still  keep  the  wealth 
within  the  immediate  family  circle. 

A  NEW  IDEAL.— The  need  of  the  world  today  is  A 
New  Ideal.  In  playing  the  great  Game  of  Grab,  in  the  Struggle 
for  the  Material,  the  people  are  developing  their  baser  instead  of 
their  higher  qualities.  We  are  not  all  Christians,  but  we  are  all 
human,  and  the  ideal  to  which  we  can  universally  subscribe, 
whether  Pagan,  Infidel,  Jew,  Protestant,  Catholic,  or  other  be- 
lief, is  what  Christ  called  the  second  great  commandment — the 
Love  of  our  Neighbor.  We  can  all  work  for  The  Cause  of 
Humanity. 


Objections  Anticipated  and 
Answered 

While  Individualism  would  benefit  everyone,  a  few  thousand 
would  have  to  dispose  of  a  surplus  when  The  Readjustment  came, 
and  many  of  these  naturally  will  be  against  its  adoption.  Being 
the  ones  in  control  of  affairs,  they  will  have  an  opportunity  to 
voice  their  objections  so  as  to  make  it  seem  as  if  they  came  from 
a  much  larger  number.  Here  are  some  of  the  objections  which 
will  be  made: 

EFFECT  ON  INCENTIVE.— Among  the  first  objec- 
tions which  will  be  advanced  is  that  it  would  destroy  incentive 
to  earn  and  save.  A  careful  analysis  shows  that  it  would  not 
destroy  legitimate  effort  one  iota,  but  on  the  whole  would  in- 
crease this  incentive  to  a  marvelous  extent.  It  certainly  would 
curb  selfish  men  from  carrying  out  schemes  by  which  they  could 
make  hundreds  of  millions,  but  think  of  the  hundreds  and  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  people  in  whom  it  would  put  new  heart  and 
life  because  they  would  now  have  enough  to  eat  and  wear,  and 
they  would  feel  there  was  a  place  for  them  in  the  great  plan  of 
life. 

One  man  said  this:  **Suppose  a  man  were  an  inventive 
genius  and  invented  a  few  good  devices  which  were  valuable 
to  mankind  and  made  his  limit,  he  would  have  no  incentive  to 
continue  inventing  and  the  world  would  lose  the  value  of  his 
genius." 

Let  us  consider  probably  the  best  known,  most  prolific  and 
most  useful  inventor  in  the  world,  Edison,  and  see  what  would 
probably  happen  in  his  case.  I  presume  Mr.  Edison  has  so 
much  wealth  that  he  would  have  to  dispose  of  some  of  it  to  come 
viiliin  the  limit,  but  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  because  he 


could  add  no  more  to  his  fortune  he  would  stop  inventing?  I 
have  not  the  honor  of  a  personal  acquaintance  with  him,  but  my 
guess  is  that  this  certainly  would  not  stop  him.  Inventing  to  him 
is  life.  The  mere  making  of  money  k  a  secondary  consideration. 
He  is  doing  something  for  humanity.  He  gets  personal  satisfac- 
tion out  of  his  improvements.  Under  an  Individualistic  regime, 
Edison,  undoubtedly,  would  go  on  inventing  as  long  as  he  could. 
He  has  an  ideal  in  life  which  is  something  else  than  the  sordid 
desire  to  make  money. 

Edison  is  merely  a  type.  Even  now  many  eminent  physi- 
cians and  surgeons,  when  they  discover  something  which  will 
benefit  the  human  race,  at  once  give  it  to  the  whole  world  to  use 
free.  They  don't  get  it  patented  to  make  money  on.  Their 
hearts  are  in  their  work,  not  in  the  money  they  can  make  from  it. 
Individualism  certainly  would  not  stop  their  incentive. 

But  how  about  the  business  man?  What  wpuld  he  do  when 
he  had  reached  his  limit? 

There  are  several  situations  here  to  consider.  I  talked  with 
a  man  recently  who  had  made  a  fortune  in  the  iron  business.  A 
few  years  ago  the  steel  trust  scared  him  into  selHng,  and  offering 
him  three  times  what  his  plant  was  worth,  he  accepted  and  re- 
tired. He  **loafed"  a  couple  of  years,  but  found  time  weighing 
heavily  on  his  hands,  so  he  took  a  job  as  superintendent  for  an 
independent  mill  at  a  moderate  salary.  He  is  now  helping  the 
other  fellow  get  along  and  is  perfectly  satisfied. 

CURBING  THE  SELFISH.— Suppose  a  man  did  not 
want  to  retire  or  work  for  someone  else,  but  preferred  to  con- 
tinue conducting  the  business  he  has  spent  his  life  at.  There  is 
absolutely  nothing  in  the  plan  of  Individualism  which  would  pre- 
vent him  from  continuing  in  business.  If  he  were  an  employer 
of  labor  and  so  absolutely  selfish  that  he  would  not  share  profits 
with  his  men,  his  earnings  ought  to  be  curbed  so  as  to  give  some- 
one else  a  chance  who  would  be  more  considerate  of  those  less 
fortunate  and  capable.  But  even  this  selfish  fellow  could  go  on 
making  as  much  as  he  could  providing  he  used  the  surplus  in  such 


a  way  that  he  would  not  accumulate  more  than  the  limit  of  com- 
mercial property.  He  could  spend  it  in  travel  and  luxuries,  or  in 
acquiring  a  splendid  home  and  other  non-commercial  property. 
And  yet  there  would  be  a  natural  limit  to  this.  Under  most 
favorable  conditions,  mammoth  incomes  like  those  today  would  be 
absolutely  impossible.  Furthermore,  taxation  on  non-commercial 
property  would  in  itself  serve  to  limit  its  accumulations  beyond  a 
reasonable  amount. 

DEVELOPING  MANHOOD.— But  how  nicely  it 
would  work  with  the  man  who  was  not  entirely  selfish.  When 
he  had  acquired  the  limit  for  himself,  his  wife,  each  of  his  chil- 
dren, and  anyone  else  to  whom  he  took  a  fancy,  it  would  be 
natural  for  him  to  consider  next  those  who  had  helped  him  gain 
that  position  of  independence.  He  would  establish  a  system  of 
profit  sharing  in  his  mill,  factory,  store  or  office,  thereby  disposing 
of  his  surplus.  And  think  how  that  would  develop  in  him  the 
highest  qualities  in  mankind — the  helping  of  others.  If  Individ- 
ualism did  nothing  else  but  develop  real  men  out  of  the  present 
crop  of  selfish  money-mad  maniacs  it  would  be  worth  while. 

Those  who  have  tried  it  realize  that  the  only  real  happiness 
in  this  life  comes  from  service — doing  something  for  others,  and 
the  best  kind  of  service  is  that  which  helps  men  to  help  them- 
selves. There  is  no  more  pitiful  spectacle  in  the  world  than  the 
selfish  miser  who  lives  for  self  alone. 

Suppose  a  lawyer,  doctor  or  other  professional  man,  who  is 
not  an  employer  of  labor,  acquired  the  limit  and  was  still  capable 
of  making  $20,000  or  $30,000  a  year  from  his  practice,  what 
could  he  do? 

If  he  were  of  the  selfish  type  he  could  do  as  proposed  for 
the  selfish  fellow  above.  If  the  other,  he  could  do  something  for 
humanity,  work  just  as  hard,  and  get  more  out  of  life  than  before. 
Let  him  serve  his  clients  or  patients  for  more  modest  fees  if  he 
desired,  let  him  give  his  surplus  income  to  religious  or  charitable 
institutions,  let  him  pay  for  the  education  of  some  worthy  young 
men  and  women.    My  God,  let  him  do  something  for  humanity! 


And  think  of  the  opportunities  for  public,  as  well  as  social 
service.  What  a  great  world  this  would  be  if  the  strong  men, 
the  men  who  have  demonstrated  their  ability  to  make  good  in  the 
business  and  professional  world,  should  turn  their  energies  to 
public  service.  What  a  glorious  example  we  had  here  in  Cleve- 
land in  the  person  of  Tom  L.  Johnson,  who  devoted  ten  years 
of  his  life  to  the  people's  interests.  He  was  called  everything 
which  embodied  selfishness,  insincerity  and  crookedness,  because 
he  was  almost  a  pioneer  in  this  line.  Many  people  could  not  be- 
lieve that  a  millionaire  could  give  up  his  race  for  wealth  and  work 
for  the  interests  of  others  at  a  comparatively  small  salary.  Tom 
L.  Johnson  paved  the  way  for  others  and  left  a  lasting  monument 
which  will  endure  in  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

That  system  of  economics  must  be  commendable  which 
would  cause  men  who  have  the  ability  to  make  millions  to  turn 
their  efforts  to  doing  something  for  their  fellow  men,  instead  of 
scheming  against  them!  Under  Individualism  the  incentive  would 
be  to  develop  the  best  there  is  in  men;  under  our  present  liberal- 
ism the  incentive  is  for  them  to  do  their  worst. 

INCREASE  EFFICIENCY  OF  LABOR.— Now  let 
us  consider  what  effect  Individualism  would  have  upon  those  mil- 
lions of  workers  who  have  less  than  the  limit.  Our  present  policy 
of  no-limit,  get-all-you-can,  is  essentially  selfish;  the  policy  of 
employers  is  to  get  as  much  out  of  their  employees  as  possible 
and  give  them  as  little  as  need  be  in  return.  The  employees, 
reflecting  this  spirit,  pursue  in  many  instances  the  policy  of  getting 
all  they  can  and  giving  less  than  they  might  in  return.  Therefore, 
capital  and  labor  under  our  present  system  are  antagonistic. 

Suppose  Individualism  should  become  effective.  The  rela- 
tions of  capital  and  labor  would  cease  to  be  antagonistic  and  be- 
come reciprocal  instead.  We  have  seen  that  for  various  reasons 
it  would  be  to  the  employers'  interest  to  share  profits  with  their 
employees  on  a  merit  system.  This  would  make  it  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  employed  to  put  forth  more  energy,  become  more 
skilled,  take  greater  care  with  their  work,  and  put  forth  their 


best  efforts  in  the  interests  of  their  employers.  What  a  great 
advantage  to  have  such  harmonious  relations.  Strikes,  boycotts 
and  lockouts  would  be  minimized,  and  the  co-operation  and  har- 
mony between  employers  and  employees  would  be  greatly  in- 
creased to  the  benefit  of  all. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  increased  incentive  for  honest  effort 
to  the  millions  of  workers  would  outweigh  immeasurably  any  curb- 
ing of  unjust  effort  upon  the  part  of  the  few. 

EFFECT  ON  COMMERCE.— Some  will  object  that 
Individualism  would  destroy  our  commercial  advantage  over  other 
nations.  This  is  a  specious  objection.  In  the  first  place  the 
principle  underlying  Individualism  is  not  only  applicable  to  our 
country,  but  to  the  whole  world,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
would  not  materialize  in  other  nations  as  quickly  as  here. 

But  suppose  we  were  the  first  to  adopt  it,  we  would  really 
be  in  a  better  position  to  compete  for  foreign  business  than  now; 
( 1  )  our  labor  would  become  more  skilled  and  put  forth  greater 
energy  than  before  for  the  reasons  already  stated;  (2)  there 
would  be  no  watered  stock  on  which  dividends  must  be  made, 
therefore  we  could  sell  as  cheap  or  cheaper  and  the  people  at 
large  would  receive  as  much  benefit  as  now. 

And  by  the  way,  where  does  our  great  advantage  in  the 
markets  of  the  world  rest  now?  In  many  cases,  right  upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  American  citizens.  Hundreds  of  articles  are 
manufactured  by  the  sweat  of  American  labor,  shipped  to  foreign 
countries  and  sold  for  less  than  we  can  buy  them  right  here  at 
home.  Surely  we  have  a  fine  advantage  in  the  markets  of  the 
world,  but  the  people  of  this  country  are  bearing  the  burden  and 
the  money  barons  are  reaping  the  benefit. 

THE  AMENDMENT.— Some  legal  lights  will  advance 
the  objection  that  such  a  change  as  we  propose  would  not  be 
constitutional.  If  they  will  throw  off  their  superficiality  for  the 
nonce,  they  will  remember  that  the  Federal  Constitution  provides 
for  its  own  amendment;  that  the  people  are  supreme  and  can 
change  the  basic  law  of  the  nation  as  they  see  fit;  that  fifteen 


amendments  have  already  been  made  in  the  instrument  which 
proves  that  it  can  be  changed. 

TAKING  MONEY  ABROAD.— It  will  be  argued  that 
many,  especially  the  multi-millionaires,  instead  of  submitting  to 
The  Readjustment,  would  expatriate  themselves,  to  Canada,  for 
instance.  In  the  light  of  analysis,  this  objection  fades  into  in- 
significance. In  the  event  that  Canada  did  not  adopt  Individual- 
ism before  we  did,  let  us  see  what  would  happen. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Millionaire  or  Billionaire  could  not 
take  the  land,  and  we  would  still  have  three  million  square  miles 
of  soil  left  after  he  had  gone,  also  all  the  oil,  gas,  coal,  lead, 
zinc,  iron,  silver,  gold,  and  other  base  and  precious  elements  in 
it.  Neither  could  he  take  the  improvements,  the  factories,  great 
buildings,  dwellings,  pavements,  bridges  and  other  fixtures.  So 
we  would  still  have  our  places  to  live  and  work  when  he  was 
with  us  no  more. 

What  could  he  take?  Money,  jewelry,  furniture  and  art 
(and  the  law  might  even  prevent  the  latter  as  European  nations 
do  now,  if  deemed  advisable).  How  much  money  could  he 
take?  All  he  could  get  together,  of  course,  but  he  would  have 
a  hard  time  getting  even  a  few  millions  together  with  which  to 
hike.  If  he  had  property  worth  a  million,  he  would  have  to  sell 
it  to  some  other  millionaire  who  was  going  to  stay.  But  no  mil- 
lionaire who  was  going  to  remain  would  buy  it  because  he  would 
have  no  use  for  it  after  he  had  bought  it,  as  he  would  either  have 
to  divide  it  among  others  in  blocks  of  not  to  exceed  $100,000 
or  have  it  taken  from  him  by  the  government. 

Nevertheless,  every  millionaire  who  didn't  like  the  way  we 
were  doing  things,  and  therefore  decided  to  leave  us,  would  be 
able  to  **scrape  together"  at  least  some  cash.  Suppose  the  total 
aggregated  the  enormous  sum  of  a  half  a  billion  dollars;  that 
wouldn't  break  us.  It  would  not  be  one  250th  part  of  the  wealth 
of  this  nation.  Our  money  per  capita  being  about  $32,  even  if 
they  carried  it  ALL  off,  97^^%  of  our  wealth  would  still  re- 


worth  of  precious  metals  in  our  rock-ribbed  districts,  our  mints 
would  still  be  in  working  order,  and  the  Government  at  Wash- 
ington could  get  busy  and  give  orders  for  the  manufacture  of 
more  money. 

There  is  another  phase  of  this  exodus  feature  worth  men- 
tioning. If  the  United  States  adopted  Individualism  before 
Canada,  the  latter  would  undoubtedly  follow  suit,  and  many  of 
the  wandering  millionaires  would  doubtless  then  return. 

HIDING  THE  SURPLUS.— The  objection  will  not  be 
overlooked  that  some  people  would  not  comply  with  the  law,  but 
would  retain  more  than  $100,000  of  commercial  property.  That 
is  undoubtedly  true.  There  are  people  breaking  laws  every  day 
and  the}^  will  probably  continue  to  do  so.  But  in  this  case  they 
would  not  be  able  to  injure  others  as  they  are  at  present. 

If  it  were  discovered  any  time  that  a  person  did  retain  more 
than  the  limit,  the  State  would  take  the  surplus  and  exact  a 
penalty,  just  as  it  does  now  when  a  man  does  not  make  full  re- 
turns for  taxes. 

Methods,  of  course,  would  have  to  be  adopted  to  prevent 
as  far  as  possible  the  hiding  of  surplus.  All  stock,  bonds  and 
mortgages  could  be  required  listed,  and  if  dummy  names  were 
used  it  would  be  possible  to  run  these  down  as  addresses  would 
have  to  be  given.  If  stock  were  distributed  among  different  people 
to  hold  that  would  not  hurt,  as  it  is  the  distribution  of  wealth 
we  are  aiming  to  accomplish. 

The  same  reasoning  applies  here  as  in  the  case  of  taking 
wealth  from  the  country.  Practically  our  entire  wealth  is  tangible 
and  could  be  made  accountable.  Money  from  which  no  interest 
could  be  secured  would  be  the  principal  wealth  which  could  be 
hidden. 

Suppose  some  who  converted  their  surplus  into  money  had 
$100,000  or  $200,000  or  $300,000  so  hid  away  in  safety 
deposit  vaults  or  elsewhere,  the  owners  dare  not  use  much  over 
$100,000  in  their  business  or  it  would  become  apparent  to  the 
public  and  officials  and  be  taken  from  them.    Therefore,  they 


could  not  become  a  menace  to  their  fellow  men  in  preventing 
them  from  getting  a  living  to  which  they  are  justly  entitled. 

Admitting  that  there  would  be  some  who  would  not  obey 
the  spirit  or  letter  of  the  law,  nevertheless  the  morals  of  the  rich 
under  the  new  regime  would  be  greatly  improved.  No  human 
law  can  make  angels  of  men.  There  is  a  higher  law  which  must 
be  invoked  for  that.  But  under  Individualism  there  would  be 
many  people  working  to  make  men,  who  now  are  bending  their 
energies  to  make  money, 

RICH  THE  PROBLEM.  NOT  THE  POOR.— In  this 
whole  discussion  of  possible  objections,  the  wholesome  thought 
stands  out  clearly  that  under  the  proposed  regime  the  problem 
would  be,  **What  to  do  with  our  rich?"  not  **What  to  do  with 
the  poor?"  as  is  now  the  case.  We  also  know  that  the  rich 
are  usually  well  able  to  take  care  of  themselves;  that  they 
are  greatly  in  the  minority,  and  that  the  unquestioned  justice  of 
government  is  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number. 


Justice  of  the  Principle 

A  fundamental  principle  of  law,  accepted  by  everyone  ex- 
cept anarchists,  is  that  as  members  of  society  we  must  give  up 
certain  rights  which  we  could  exercise  if  we  lived  apart  from  it. 

If  a  man  who  owned  a  steam  boiler  made  his  home  in  a 
country  inhabited  only  by  himself  he  might  carry  300  lbs.  of 
steam  on  it,  and  there  would  be  no  one  to  molest  or  restrain  him. 
He  would  be  a  law  unto  himself.  But  if  he  moved  it  to  any 
place  where  people  lived  he  would  then  be  a  member  of  society 
and  would  be  governed  by  its  laws. 

The  law  provides  that  an  inspector  shall  test  each  boiler, 
determine  what  pressure  can  be  carried  on  it  without  danger  of 
explosion  and  set  its  safety  valve  so  the  steam  will  "blow  off'* 
when  the  limit  is  reached.  If  the  inspector  found,  upon  testing 
this  hypothetical  boiler,  that  to  carry  300  lbs.  of  steam  on  it 
was  dangerous,  its  owner  would  not  be  permitted  to  do  so.  The 
safety  valve  would  be  set  at  75  lbs.  or  whatever  the  safety  mark 
was.    He  would  be  limited  for  the  benefit  of  society. 

Everyone  admits  that  the  law  which  thus  limits  a  man's 
personal  liberty  is  just.  Let  us  examine  a  case  in  which  we  use 
money  instead  of  steam  and  we  will  see  that  the  same  principle 
applies  with  equal  force. 

Suppose  a  boat  should  be  wrecked  upon  an  hitherto  undis- 
covered island  and  only  one  of  the  crew  survive.  He  might  be- 
come owner  of  that  entire  island,  and  though  it  were  stored  with 
precious  metals  worth  billions,  that  would  make  no  difference  to 
society.  His  wealth  would  not  be  a  menace  to  it,  he  not  being 
a  part  of  it. 

But  if  he  should  hail  a  passing  ship,  bring  his  vast  fortune 
into  society  and  use  it  to  make  himself  still  richer  at  the  expense 
of  his  fellow  men,  whom  he  ground  down  to  the  condition  that 

66 


they  could  not  buy  the  necessities  of  life,  he  would  be  an  enemy 
of  society,  and  the  State  would  have  just  as  divine  a  right  to  curb 
his  power  to  injure  others  as  it  did  the  other  man  from  carrying 
300  lbs.  of  steam  on  his  boiler. 

OTHER  PRECEDENTS.— As  a  further  evidence  of 
the  justice  of  the  principle  of  limited  ownership  let  us  cite  some 
laws  which  are  among  the  statutes. 

We  make  it  a  crime  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  one 
person  to  do  personal  violence  to  another,  or  even  threaten  to. 
Are  we  not  therefore  justified  in  restraining  men  from  acquiring 
so  much  wealth  that  they  make  their  fellow  men  suffer  the  pangs 
of  hunger  and  cold? 

Every  State  regulates  by  law  the  rate  of  interest  which  can 
be  collected  for  the  use  of  money. 

The  Federal  Government  lays  a  tax  on  the  incomes  of  all 
corporations  whose  net  earnings  are  over  $5,000  per  annum,  and 
an  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  is  now  pending  which, 
if  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  States,  will 
permit  the  taxation  of  incomes  of  individuals. 

Some  States  lay  a  heavy  tax  on  inheritances. 

If  these  laws  and  similar  restraints  which  we  put  on  mem- 
bers of  society  are  just,  there  would  be  nothing  unjust  in  limiting 
ownership.  In  fact,  unless  we  do,  we  are  permitting  great  in- 
justice against  a  large  part  of  our  people.  It  is  not  only  the 
privilege,  but  the  duty  of  society  to  protect  the  weak  from  the 
injustice  of  the  strong. 

History  clearly  establishes  the  fact  that  for  thousands  of 
years  throughout  the  world  members  of  society  who  have  been 
possessed  of  great  wealth  have  frequently  been  menaces  to  society. 
No  human  being  can  conceive  the  sufferings  of  humanity  which 
have  resulted  from  their  machinations.  To-day  we  have  a  con- 
dition which  portends  as  great  evils  as  any  we  can  read  of  in 
history. 

Throughout  this  bountiful  land,  whose  crops  are  so  plenti- 
ful that  millions  of  bushels  of  its  products  are  exported  annually 

 67  


to  other  countries,  thousands  of  people  have  not  enough  to  eat; 
throughout  this  land  of  wealth,  whose  bowels  are  ladened  with 
incalculable  stores  of  coal,  gas  and  oil,  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  its  inhabitants  have  not  sufficient  fuel  to  keep  them  warm 
in  winter;  throughout  this  land  of  industry,  with  brains  and  ma- 
chinery capable  of  competing  with  the  labor  of  any  country,  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  honest,  willing,  deserving  men  are  search- 
ing for  work  in  vain. 

Those  who  are  responsible  for  these  intolerable  conditions 
are  nothing  short  of  enemies  of  society,  and  simple  justice  demands 
that  their  power  be  curbed. 


Program  for  Materializing 


Hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  throughout  the  world 
know  from  personal  experience  and  observation  that  affairs  are 
unjust,  and  that  they  will  continue  to  get  worse  unless  action  is 
taken  to  correct  them.  Indeed,  one  can  scarcely  meet  a  person 
who  has  not  a  desire  to  do  something  to  better  conditions.  Many 
are  giving  charity  and  doing  noble  welfare  work,  but  they  realize 
that  this  is  simply  relieving  present  needs,  and  that  it  is  not  help- 
ing much  for  the  future.  While  this  should  be  continued,  a  con- 
centrated action  which  will  strike  at  and  remove  the  cause  of  much 
want  and  distress  is  certainly  highly  desirable. 

The  body  politic  has  been  attacked  with  a  deadly  disease 
and  eruptions  have  appeared  on  the  surface.  While  it  is  a 
good  work  to  put  salve  on  these  sores  and  thus  help  to  relieve 
the  sufferings  of  the  patient,  yet  if  we  are  going  to  save  the  pa- 
tient's life  we  must  cure  the  disease  itself.  When  that  is  done 
the  sores  will  automatically  disappear. 

INDIVIDUALISM  EFFECTIVE  AND  PRAC- 
TICAL.— A  concentrated  effort  should  be  made  to  apply  the 
remedy  of  Individualism,  ( 1 )  because  it  is  a  positive  cure  and 
(2)  because  it  is  perfectly  feasible. 

The  advent  of  the  corporation,  though  largely  responsible 
for  our  condition  today,  is  the  very  thing  which  makes  the 
materialization  of  Individualism  possible.  The  airship  had  to 
wait  the  invention  of  the  gas  engine,  and  limited  ownership  in  our 
age  of  large  business  and  complex  conditions  had  to  await  the 
invention  of  the  corporation.  Now  that  we  have  the  one,  we 
can  have  the  other. 

But  no  matter  how  practical  or  effective  a  plan  may  or 
might  be,  it  will  accomplish  nothing  unless  materialized.  The 
first  logical  and  most  effective  step  to  vitalize  Individualism  is  to 


get  an  organized  force  behind  it.  Therefore,  I  propose  the  forma- 
tion of  a  society  to  be  composed  of  those  who  believe  in  the 
principle  of  limited  ownership  and  are  willing  to  assist  in  securing 
its  adoption. 

A  PROPOSED  PROGRAM.— A  commendable  fea- 
ture of  the  solution  is  that  much  can  be  done  toward  realizing  the 
benefits  of  it  ere  the  keystone  can  be  placed  in  position.  The 
following  program  would  aid  greatly  both  in  relieving  the  economic 
situation  and  hastening  the  ratification  of  the  desired  amend- 
ment: 

( 1 )  Campaign  for  disciples  among  all  classes. 

(2)  Induce  labor  to  advocate  profit  sharing. 

(3)  Induce  political  parties  to  declare  for  limited  owner- 
ship in  their  platforms. 

(4)  Secure  the  passage  of  income  tax  and  inheritance  tax 
laws,  also  other  regulatory  and  restrictive  laws  which  will  tend 
to  prevent  further  centralization  of  wealth  and  make  for  a  more 
equitable  distribution  of  it. 

(5)  Finally,  secure  such  amendment  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution as  will  limit  the  amount  of  wealth  which  any  individual 
may  own. 

CAMPAIGN  OF  EDUCATION.— There  are  at  least 
some  rich  men  who,  upon  being  shown  the  justice  of  the  limited 
ownership  principle,  could  be  induced  to  acquiesce  to  it  and  act 
upon  it  voluntarily.  The  fact  that  Dr.  Pearson  of  Chicago  dis- 
tributed his  fortune  of  $7,000,000  before  his  recent  death  is  an 
encouraging  instance  of  what  others  might  be  induced  to  do. 
Among  the  first  efforts  of  the  Society  therefore  should  be  a  cam- 
paign to  convert  as  many  as  possible  to  the  principle.  Every  time 
a  man  who  possessed  in  excess  of  the  limit  agreed  to  dispose  of 
the  surplus,  and  did  so,  the  cause  of  humanity  would  be  advanced. 

ASSISTANCE  OF  LABOR.— Both  organized  and  un- 
organized labor  should  be  urged  to  try  to  induce  their  employers 
to  share  profits  with  them.    A  minimum  wage  scale  should  be 


ers  according  to  their  efficiency,  as  determined  by  the  quality  and 
quantity  of  their  results. 

Profit  sharing  should  not  be  of  the  brand  used  by  the  steel 
trust  which  gives  the  employer  an  unjust  hold  on  or  power  over 
men.  It  should  be  such  as  will  foster  loyalty  and  make  for  more 
harmonious  relations  between  employer  and  employee. 

POLITICAL  PARTIES.— The  formation  of  a  new 
political  party  should  be  unnecessary  to  secure  real  reform.  We 
need  two  great  parties  to  balance  each  other,  but  there  is  no  cry- 
ing need  for  another.  There  are  plenty  of  progressives  in  both 
parties.  If  a  good  percentage  of  these  could  be  formed  into  a 
non-partisan  society  they  could  work  as  a  unit  for  reform  through 
that,  and  by  still  retaining  allegiance  to  their  respective  parties 
exert  a  leavening  influence  in  each.  When  the  people  want  any 
reform  and  make  a  strong  enough  demand  for  it,  they  get  it.  And 
when  the  great  parties  see  there  is  a  demand  for  limited  owner- 
ship it  will  be  incorporated  in  their  platforms. 

INCOME  AND  INHERITANCE  TAXES,  both  State 
and  Federal,  increasing  rapidly  in  proportion  to  the  amounts 
involved,  should  be  advocated  and  their  enactment  urged.  Also 
laws  which  will  regulate  and  restrict  the  unjust  actions  of  trusts, 
pools  and  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade,  both  great  and  small, 
and  other  progressive  laws  which  will  keep  the  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  people. 

SECURING  THE  AMENDMENT.— While  much  can 
be  accomplished  by  the  foregoing  factors,  The  Amendment  should 
ever  be  looked  forward  to  and  worked  for  as  the  desideratum. 
This  should  be  hastened  further  by  endeavoring  to  nominate  and 
elect  candidates  to  Congress  who  endorse  the  principle  which  un- 
derlies Individualism. 

If  the  idea  possesses  the  merit  which  so  many  forceful 
arguments  indicate,  and  which  history  proves  that  it  does,  enough 
members  of  both  branches  of  Congress  will  be  elected  eventually 
to  pass  The  Amendment  Resolution.     It  will  then  have  to  be 


ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  States — and 
when  that  is  done  The  Readjustment  will  take  place. 

The  provision  for  this  should  contain  at  least  these  vital 
features: 

(a)  A  reasonable  time,  say  a  year,  should  be  given  for 
each  individual  to  adjust  his  affairs  and  dispose  of  his  surplus 
wealth.  He  should  be  permitted  to  give  it  to  his  wife,  children 
or  friends,  to  divide  it  among  his  employees  on  a  merit  basis  or 
any  basis  he  chose,  or  to  give  it  to  religious,  eleemosynary  or 
educational  institutions,  or  to  dispose  of  it  in  any  other  legitimate 
way  he  wished. 

(b)  At  the  expiration  of  the  stipulated  time,  if  any  be 
found  who  had  not  complied  with  the  law,  the  surplus  over  the 
limit  should  be  taken  by  the  Government,  put  into  the  public 
treasury  and  used  to  pay  the  running  expenses  of  the  Government, 
thus  reducing  taxes  and  giving  everyone  the  benefit. 

It  will  be  readily  seen  that  this  plan  for  The  Readjustment 
does  not  at  any  point  anticipate  the  summary  taking  property  from 
one  person  and  giving  it  to  another.  No  one  would  get  anything 
for  which  he  did  not  labor  any  more  than  he  does  at  present 
(except  in  case  it  should  be  given  him  voluntarily  by  an  individual 
in  disposing  of  his  surplus). 


The  Testimony  of  History 

There  are  a  good  many  conservative  people  everywhere  who 
look  askance  at  new  and  untried  theories  of  government.  They 
serve  a  purpose — they  act  as  a  sort  of  balance  wheel  to  that  class 
who  formerly  were  known  as  **radicals"  or  "cranks/*  but  who 
now  seem  to  be  coming  into  their  own,  being  styled  by  the  more 
respectable  title  of  * 'progressives,*'  while  the  formerly  so-called 
•'conservatives**  are  now  known  by  the  somewhat  stigmatic  title 
of  ''reactionaries.** 

For  the  benefit  of  all  classes,  however,  it  is  a  matter  of 
considerable  satisfaction  to  be  able  to  cite  the  fact  that  limited 
ownership  is  neither  new  or  untried,  but  was  employed  more  than 
2^000  years  ago  with  most  beneficial  results. 

There  are  numerous  instances  in  ancient  history  of  the  period- 
ical distribution  of  wealth.  According  to  Aristotle,  Phileas  of 
Chalcedon,  deeming  property  to  be  the  turning  point  of  all  revolu- 
tions, was  the  first  to  affirm  that  the  citizens  of  a  State  ought  to 
have  equal  possessions.  We  learn  from  the  Old  Testament  that 
there  was  a  redistribution  of  wealth  every  half  century,  in  the 
Jubilee  year.  Emile  De  Laveleye,  in  his  splendid  book.  Primitive 
Property^,  points  out  numerous  instances  among  the  old  Germans, 
Celts  and  others,  in  which  an  effort  was  made  to  maintain  mate- 
rial equality  by  frequent  redistributions  and  other  means. 

While  all  this  is  interesting  to  a  certain  degree,  it  is  not 
altogether  relevant  to  our  purpose,  since  we  do  not  beheve  in  an 
exactly  equal  distribution  of  wealth,  but  in  a  sufficient  balance  to 
equalize  Opportunity.  We  are,  therefore,  deeply  concerned  about 
the  instances  in  which  a  Hmit  above  the  per  capita  wealth  has  been 
set  and  the  consequences  thereof. 

LIMITED  OWNERSHIP  IN  GREECE.^olon,  who 
it  conceded  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  constructive  statesmen  of  all 


time,  seems  to  have  been  the  first  of  whom  we  have  authentic 
information  to  limit  accumulations.  He  did  this  about  the  year 
594  B.  C.  when  he  gave  Athens  a  new  constitution.  The  sub- 
sequent history  of  Greece  contains  many  instances  in  which  the 
restricting  law  was  enforced  with  beneficial  results,  and  when 
Liberalism  was  in  vogue  dire  effects  ensued.  In  summing  up 
his  chapter  on  ''Property  in  Greece,"  Laveleye  says: 

**In  the  other  Greek  republics  we  find  the  same  economic 
evolution  as  at  Sparta — the  concentration  of  landed  property,  the 
advance  of  inequahty,  cultivation  by  slaves,  whose  number  is 
continually  increasing,  and  finally  depopulation.  When  Greece 
became  a  Roman  province  it  was  transformed  into  a  desert,  where 
the  flocks  wandered  at  will,  and  wild  beasts  lurked  in  the  ruins 
of  temples  and  cities.  At  the  end  of  the  first  century  of  our  era, 
the  population  was  so  reduced  that  the  whole  of  Greece  could 
hardly  produce  3,000  fully  armed  warriors,  the  number  which 
Megara  alone  sent  to  the  battle  of  Platea.  Equality  was  the 
basis  of  Greek  democracies;  inequality  was  their  ruin." 

RESULTS  IN  ROME.— The  Licinian  laws  prohibited 
anyone  from  pasturing  more  than  a  certain  number  of  cattle  or 
from  possessing  more  than  500  jugera  (about  375  acres)  of  pub- 
lic lands.  The  surplus  of  anyone  owning  more  than  that  was  dis- 
tributed among  the  poor.  The  results  which  attended  the  enact- 
ment of  these  laws  are  given  by  M.  Laboulaye  in  his  Des  lois 
Agraires  chez  les  Romains,  as  follows: 

*'The  century  which  follows  the  Licinian  laws  is  the  one 
in  which  the  soldiers  of  Rome  seem  inexhaustible.  Varro,  Pliny 
and  Columella  continually  refer  to  these  great  days  of  the  Re- 
public as  the  time  when  Italy  was  really  powerful  by  the  richness 
of  its  soil  and  the  number  and  prosperity  of  its  inhabitants.  The 
law  of  the  five  hundred  jugera  is  always  quoted  by  them  with 
admiration,  as  being  the  first  which  recognized  the  evil,  and  sought 
to  remedy  it  by  retarding  the  formation  of  those  vast  domains, 
or  latifundia,  which  depopulated  Italy,  and  after  Italy  the  whole 
empire." 

The  "latifundia,"  or  great  estates,  of  Rome  were  made 
ix>ssible  by  favorable  laws,  or  in  some  instances,  the  non-enforce- 
ment of  laws,  and  in  that  respect  their  growth  was  not  unlike 


the  development  of  immense  fortunes  of  today.  The  great  number 
of  slaves  which  were  owned  was  another  factor  in  their  evolution. 
In  the  time  of  Augustus  one  man  owned  over  4,000  slaves.  In 
lieu  of  actual  slaves  today  those  of  great  wealth  have  the  trusts 
by  means  of  which  they  can  derive  practically  the  same  results, 
being  in  a  position  to  regain  nearly  all  the  wages  paid  through 
their  power  to  regulate  prices.  In  fact,  they  have  a  little  the 
better  of  the  Roman  magnates,  as  they  are  not  only  able  to  make 
profits  on  their  employees,  but  on  the  public  at  large  as  well.  An- 
other similarity  between  the  formation  of  the  latifundia  and  the 
trusts  is  in  the  killing  of  competition.  Where  freemen  owned  land 
they  were  sometimes  bought  out,  but  often  driven  out.  Human 
nature  does  not  seem  to  change  much  as  the  centuries  roll  on. 

The  Licinian  laws  were  enforced  and  abrogated  alternately 
over  a  long  period,  according  as  the  ''party"  in  power  favored 
the  people  or  the  predatory  interests,  and  "according  to  M. 
Mace,"  says  Laveleye,  "agrarian  laws,  that  is  to  say,  the  dis- 
tribution of  public  land  among  the  citizens,  produced  the  best 
results  every  time  they  were  really  carried  into  execution ;  and  the 
aristocracy,  by  their  opposition  to  them,  caused  alike  their  own 
ruin  and  that  of  the  empire." 

So  strikingly  does  Laveleye  describe  the  needs  of  the  present 
from  a  study  of  the  past  that  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  his 
closing  words  on  Roman  property: 

"The  concentration  of  property  in  a  few  hands,  by  multi- 
plying the  number  of  slaves,  dried  up  the  natural  source  of  wealth, 
free  and  responsible  labour;  and  by  destroying  the  sturdy  race  of 
proprietor  cultivators,  at  once  excellent  soldiers  and  good  citizens, 
who  had  given  Rome  the  empire  of  the  world,  it  destroyed  the 
foundation  of  republican  institutions.  Latifundia  perdidere 
Italiam,  (Vast  estates  destroyed  Rome. — Pliny)  the  irremediable 
fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  justifies  the  phrase,  which  re-echoes 
through  the  centuries  as  a  warning  to  modern  societies.  The 
French  Revolution,  and  most  continental  legislation,  has  been 
inspired  with  the  feeling  which  dictated  the  Licinian  laws  and 
those  of  the  Gracchi.  It  endeavoured  to  create  a  nation  of  pro- 
prietors; such  had  been  the  actual  result  of  primitive  communities. 


65 


To-day,  in  presence  of  the  democratic  movement  by  which  we 
are  impelled,  and  of  the  equaHsing  tendencies  which  agitate  the 
labouring  classes,  the  one  means  of  averting  disaster  and  saving 
liberty,  is  to  seek  an  organization,  which  may  confer  property  on 
all  citizens  able  to  labour." 

Such  is  the  conclusion  of  a  modern  historian  after  an  ex- 
haustive study  of  ancient  conditions.  And  it  is  at  least  a  remark- 
able coincidence  that  another  writer,  after  studying  modern  con- 
ditions and  tendencies,  should  have  evolved  the  same  solution  as  a 
corrective  measure. 

Since  our  trouble  today  is  due  to  the  same  fundamental 
cause  as  in  the  case  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and  since  human 
nature  is  the  same  now  as  then  it  must  necessarily  follow  that  the 
same  principle  properly  modified  to  meet  modern  conditions  would 
be  as  effective  now  as  it  was  2,000  years  ago. 

If  when  M.  Laveleye  wrote  his  book  some  thirty  years  ago 
he  had  formed  an  organization  which  would  have  materialized 
his  conclusion,  the  condition  of  his  France  and  other  countries 
might  be  different  today.  If  we  fail  to  do  what  he  neglected  I 
doubt  not  but  the  time  will  come  when  historians  will  be  recording 
the  fact  that  the  modem  latifundia  destroyed  our  republic. 

The  time  has  come  when  the  people  should  take  a  united 
stand  against  the  machinations  and  those  who  are  rapidly  under- 
mining the  foundations  of  our  government  by  destroying  the  op- 
portunities of  its  citizens  to  enjoy  **life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness.*'  The  Declaration  of  Independence  unequivocally 
states,  **That  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  destruc- 
tive to  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  people  to  alter  or  abolish  it." 
There  is  no  desire  or  need  to  abolish  our  government,  but  there  is 
vital  need  to  alter  it  as  provided  by  the  Constitution  itself. 

If,  in  view  of  the  many  arguments  for  limited  ownership  as 
applied  to  modern  conditions  set  forth  in  this  modest  booklet 
and  the  remarkable  testimony  of  history  cited  in  support  of  it, 
you  are  convinced  that  action  should  be  taken  in  this  country  as 
soon  as  may  be  to  restore  opportunity  to  all  citizens  by  curbing 
the  money  power  of  individuals,  you  are  invited  to  become  a 
member  of  the  proposed  militant  force  for  Our  Country  and 
Humanity— THE  INDIVIDUALIST  SOCIETY. 


